u 
dit 
Fe 


patty 
SEPCSREPTT ICS FS 


eetereree 
vont Bt 
St Ta 


rae 


—aF > 


ily Hy i 





— Fe Maite & 





George Perry, 





.R8 1926 — 





nae iy 
“ 
PRT 2 15 
Rutledge, 


m <> i t 
= ‘a . - 
eee ees & . 
i = ae ) S . : 
7s Cae, ot oe : 
ee Pe Se ° 
| . < > h 





1 ay OS a ea ae o 3 Ae Es 
A . c= 5 ” an "a 7 . * - ~<j 
es Ban RR Oy PE TES 





SP A Sap I Et : 


a bal aah =e Sag oe ae Scie Ohne oe 
. . < a a 





a 


: we 


ae % 
at 











if, Lees et 
ihe 4! 
Hg ae 


ron ye aia” 










dite wi ' bat 





Rt ty 


ih Ae 






TE MiICACEE 
Oe THE AGES 


~’NOV Ly 1926 


bap 
SOL ogie44 eS 
BY / 


GEORGE P.,RUTLEDGE 


Author of “The Pledge in Sermon,”’ ‘‘Pushing the World Alon," Ete. 


ose 


CINCINNATI 
THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY 


ne 


Wiha 
wazi4 


(7% 





TO 


My youngest daughter, Carol, who 
traveled with me three summers 
and sang, ‘‘Rock of Ages’ at 
the close of my lecture, 


this book is lovin3- 
ly dedicated. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


htips://archive.org/details/miracleofagesOOrutl_0 


CONTENTS 


BEC RODUCTION | s.cccueeee deen tines te 7 
METHOD OF REASONING. coosssssscsccssnsescseeees she 
PACTS ARE HW ACTSI serie ot ld 25 
SE RSUS sb aT VED. 21 eee ee cee eens 30 
UGE HW. | LH EOLOGY eae ee ol 
PASCTROUPL OR WACTH oe eesti bats 62 
Pe tLOBE wAROUNDIco ra, 68 
PERN Ag ae dol do Pee tea 79 
APT RIST MAG oy coat art ee ee te cen Ne 92 
Moprrn LITERATURE . 98 
ANTS act dee RENAE LE Tet Nba Silas 109 
BYU wee ale tv aan Co Rg es ee 121 
THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR ...ccccccssssscsss 135 
RN TTIOR SOUT Gogo eal eens eon ths Lae 141 
11g 4 B25 gr ee ee ORES EL Wein ANS 153 


CONTENTS 


AL UAVESTER Slee Ae eee eee 168 
SUMMARY: 0002 yO ea ae 179 
THE BIBLE. REOPENED Sache 186 
THE WORLD'S: REDE MER cee 194 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS... 205 


[6] 


INTRODUCTION 


HY this book? 

Some books are planned; oth- 
ers just happen, if it may be said 
that anything happens. The volume 
hereby introduced is not the result of 
sudden inspiration, nor is it the reali- 
zation of a long-cherished dream. It is 
a development, not originally antici- 
pated. It was practically thought out 
before it was thought of as a distinct 
publication. 

The subject herein treated was 
briefly touched upon in a sermon de- 
livered in 1914 from the pulpit of the 
Broad Street Church of Christ, Colum- 
bus, O. In 1916 that sermon appeared 
as a chapter in the book entitled, 
‘*Pushing the World Along.’’ 

In later years, the sermon, worked 
over and changed into an ‘‘address,”’’ 
was delivered on numerous occasions 


[7] 


INTRODUCTION 








—county and district church conven- 
tions, church dedications, ete. 

Several years ago, a gentleman at a 
convention suggested that the address 
should be put in lecture form and de- 
livered throughout the country. No 
special immediate consideration was 
given the matter. Nevertheless, it lin- 
gered and was an occasional flitting 
dream. 

In 1922, a meeting for men only was 
announced for the Richmond Street 
Christian Church, Cincinnati, O. The 
old sermon-address was reconstructed 
and delivered to an audience of some- 
thing like seven hundred. The speech 
upon that occasion received consider- 
able local attention, and, for the first 
time, it was referred to as a lecture. 

Soon thereafter requests for the 
‘Deity of Jesus Lecture,’’ as it was 
called, came from various places. The 
lecture was then prepared for ‘‘gen- 
eral delivery,’’ and arrangements were 
made to itinerate it. During the three 
years that followed, it was heard prac- 


[8] 


INTRODUCTION 


tically throughout the country east of 
the Rocky Mountains—as far north as 
South Dakota and Maine, and as far 
south as Miami and San Antonio. 

The lecture was delivered in churech- 
es, court-houses, theaters, Y. M. C. A. 
halls, tabernacles, chautauqua sheds 
and tents, Masonic and Oddfellows and 
Knights of Pythias halls, coliseums, 
public-school and chamber of com- 
merce auditoriums, and in the open air. 

A number of the largest audito- 
riums were secured for this lecture. 
The Masonic Auditorium, Cleveland, 
Q.; the Forum, Wichita, Kan.; Bee- 
thoven Hall, San Antonio, Tex.; the 
Coliseum, Toledo, O.; the Masonic 
Temple, Trenton, N. J.; the Town 
Hall, Canton, O.; the Coliseum, Dal- 
las, Tex.; the Y. M. C. A. Auditorium, 
Newark, N. J., and Ryman Hall, Nash- 
ville, Tenn.—these assembly-places are 
readily recalled. 

The following are some of the 
churches in which the lecture was de- 
livered: People’s Auditorium (First 

[9] 


INTRODUCTION 


Baptist Church), St. Paul, Minn.; the 
First Methodist Church, Racine, Wis. ; 
the Capitol Hill Christian Church, Des 
Moines, Ia.; the Central Christian 
Chureh, Hammond, Ind.; the First 
Presbyterian Church, Gary, Ind.; the 
Central Methodist Church, Terre 
Haute, Ind.; the First Baptist Church,. 
Newark, O.; the First Methodist 
Church, North Long Branch, N. J., and 
the First Christian Church, Miami, Fla. 

The dates were usually arranged 
by a competent advance agent, and, 
with but few exceptions, the audiences 
were large. In many places I faced 
capacity audiences—Wichita, Miami 
and San Antonio, for examples. In 
some cities people were turned away in 
large numbers—it was reported that 
at Castle Hall, Detroit, Mich., as many 
were turned away as were admitted. 
Some of the shed meetings were said 
to have been the largest known in the 
communities for many years—one of 
these was held in the park at Wabash, 
Ind. 

[10] 


INTRODUCTION 


The local press almost everywhere 
was exceedingly cordial—announcing 
the lecture generously and quoting it 
liberally. A St. Paul paper gave its 
readers almost the entire speech. (It 
may be added that The Lookout, of 
Cincinnati, O., reproduced the St. Paul 
publication. ) 

The lecture was not always received 
in good humor by ministers. An oc- 
casional minister, known for his liberal 
tendencies, appeared to regard the 
meeting in his town as a personal in- 
sult—deliberately planned to interfere 
with his pulpit work. Now and then 
a minister refused to attend the meet- 
ing. One was reported to have stated, 
without mincing matters, that he did 
not care to hear ‘‘such stuff’’ as he 
had been told the lecture contained. 
Another, who heard the lecture, was 
reported to have referred to it as ‘‘a 
conglomeration of unsophisticated riff- 
raff.’’ It struck me then, and still 
strikes me, that his estimate of my 
mentality was not very flattering. 


[11] 


INTRODUCTION 








Also, a preacher who did not deem 
it worth while to attend the meeting 
went so far as to burden his sermon 
with extended reference to it the fol- 
lowing Sunday. The major part of his 
criticism, however, was hurled at the 
school board for having permitted the 
lecture in the high-school auditorium. 
I have often wondered whether or not 
my lecture sent that unfortunate 
school board to political limbo. Some- 
times ministers presented themselves 
‘‘front’’ at the close of the meeting to 
engage the tired, perspiring lecturer 
in argument—and the argument usu- 
ally ensued. It is no more than fair 
to add that a large majority of the 
ministers supported the lecture mag- 
nanimously—announcing it from their 
pulpits, and otherwise promoting it. 
Frequently, especially in the towns, the 
platform was filled with local ministers, 
and they almost invariably expressed 
satisfaction with the discourse. 

The laity, generally, was enthusias- 
tic in both greetings and expressions. 


[12] 


INTRODUCTION 


The hearty handshake and word of 
commendation upon the part of hun- 
dreds, whose names were not learned, © 
linger as treasured memories. 

A judge who presided at the New- 
ark (N. J.) meeting stated that, in his 
opinion, the lecture should be put into 
book form. Moreover, this suggestion 
was made repeatedly by sympathetic 
ministers. Finally, a friend, who has 
ever manifested an abiding interest in 
things fundamental, made the publica- 
tion possible. As a result of it all, the 
sermon which became an address, and 
then a lecture, is now a book. 

Should some of my former auditors 
read this volume, they will note that 
each subject touched upon in the speech 
has been elaborated into a chapter. 
The book is the lecture enlarged. 

The reader will discover, as did the 
auditor, that in the discussion no at- 
tempt has been made at a display of 
scholarship. ‘There are two reasons 
for this. First, I do not regard myself 
as an academic expert along any line, 

[13 ] 


INTRODUCTION 








nor have I ever felt inclined to pose as 
a scholar—either conservative or lib- 
eral. Second, my reading—which has 
been constant, and hence not extremely 
limited—has led me to conclude that 
many books, especially theological 
works, are too much burdened with 
‘deep thinking’’ and with terms and 
phrases not familiar to the public to 
accomplish the greater mission. When 
the average reader is driven to the ne- 
cessity of consulting a reference library 
every few minutes to find out what his 
author is trying to say, he usually 
loses interest and sleepily lays the book 
aside. Jesus talked about the funda- 
mentals. Yet He used the language 
of common speech and illustrated the 
truths He uttered with things com- 
monly understood. Perhaps that was 
one reason why the common people 
heard Him gladly. 

Nothing is'\ more important when 
preparing sermons or lectures, or when 
writing articles or books, than the 
proper selection of terms—especially 


pie) 


INTRODUCTION 


names or designations. My embarrass- 
ment upon numerous occasions has re- 
sulted from eareless introductions. 
Ministers, as well as laymen, have in- 
troduced me to lecture on ‘‘The Deity 
of Christ.’? At one place I was intro- 
duced by a banker of local distinction 
to lecture on ‘‘The Deity of the Son 
of God’’! This looks absurd in print, 
and it must have appeared absurd to 
many in that audience. But the phrase, 
“The Deity of the Son of God,’’ is no 
more out of keeping with exactness 
than is the phrase, ‘‘The Deity of 
Christ’’—which is sometimes seen in 
published article and in book, and 
frequently heard in sermon. The crit- 
ics have debated practically everything 
between the lids of the Bible, and in 
numerous particulars they have 
changed the popular viewpoint. It is 
generally conceded, however, and 
doubtless will ever be, that the He- 
brew word for Messiah corresponds 
in the Greek of the New Testament 
to the word translated Christ, or, 
2 F 15 ] 


INTRODUCTION 








more properly, the Christ. As does 
Messiah, the Christ means the Anointed 
of God. One would never say ‘‘The 
Deity of God.’’ Exacting students 
might object to this parallelism, and 
by a process of needle-point reasoning 
they might affirm with a slight degree 
of plausibility that it is not academic- 
ally put. Nevertheless, if by any 
method of reasoning Jesus of Nazareth 
is proven to be the Messiah, the Christ, 
the Anointed of God, or more than man, 
His oneness with God will have been 
sufficiently established to force recog- 
nition of His deity. Hence, in the 
discussion that follows the name, 
‘*Jesus,’’ and never ‘‘Christ,’’ will be 
employed to designate the One whom I 
hope to prove was, and is, more than 
man—the Christ, the Anointed of God, 
the Deity once manifest in the flesh. 
(It will be understood, of course, that 
this rule can not apply when historic 
reference or direct quotation is em- 
ployed.) AUTHOR. 


[16] 


METHOD OF REASONING 
(Matt. 28: 18.) 


All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, 
—Authorized Version. 

All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and 
on earth.—American Revised Version. 

All authority in heaven and on earth hath been given 
unto me.—LRotherham’s Translation. 

Full authority in heaven and on the earth has been 
given to me.—Goodspeed’s Translation. 

Full authority has been given to me in heaven and 
on earth—Moffatt’s Translation, 

All power in heaven and over the earth has been 
given to me.—Weymouth’s Translation. 

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, 
—Douay Version, 


HIS announcement, attributed to 
one called Jesus of Nazareth, just 
prior to His ascension, is quoted merely 
as a starting-point. Owing to the char- 
acter of the discussion this chapter 
introduces, it can not be logically sub- 
mitted as proof of anything. J have 
said that the announcement quoted is 
[17] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 








‘attributed to one called Jesus of Naz- 
areth, just prior to His ascension,’’ be- 
cause I can not now make a positive 
statement about Jesus, His utterances 
or His ascension. That Jesus lived 
can not at present be taken for granted. 
Hence, His ascension can not be taken 
for granted, nor can any utterances at- 
tributed to Him. The apparent irrev- 
erence of this position will fade from 
the reader’s mind as he proceeds. This 
thesis proposes to prove that Jesus 
lived, and still lives, and that He was, 
and is, more than man. But until the 
first part of the proposition shall have 
been substantiated, it can not be as- 
sumed that Jesus lived. 

I never discuss, in public address 
or in print, things I know nothing 
about. And just here I am forced, by 
the task I have set myself, to tempo- 
rarily adopt the agnostic’s ‘‘if.’’ If 
Jesus lived, and if there be a heaven, 
and if Jesus ascended into heaven, I 
know nothing about the authority He 
exercises there. Hence, the first part of 


[18 ] 


METHOD OF REASONING 


the passage I have chosen for a start- 
ing-point is at once eliminated. I 
shall, however, contend that Jesus lived 
and that He has authority on earth. 
And in making this contention I shall 
appeal exclusively to things I know 
something about. 

The usual sermon or lecture or book 
on the historicity or deity of Jesus— 
and especially His deity—appeals to, 
and in great measure rests its case 
upon, statements in the Bible. From 
my viewpoint, this method, which in- 
sists that the Bible contains the au- 
thentic word of God, is in this day of 
graded skepticism subject to adverse 
eriticism—if not to censure and ridi- 
cule. 

It may be that the man with whom 
one is reasoning regards the Bible as 
a bundle of improbable stories, and 
that to him it is, as a whole, a con- 
temptible book which ought not to be 
permitted circulation. This is his 
privilege, and his sincerity, taken for 
granted, should be respected. Robert 

[19 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 








G. Ingersoll’s sincerity was generally 
respected, mainly because he sacrificed 
much—ineluding political emolument 
—upon what he called ‘‘the altar 
of conviction.’”’? He not only declined 
to accept the Bible as an inspired book, 
but he contended that the Bible should 
be either changed or suppressed. And 
men of Ingersoll’s way of thinking are 
more numerous than one might sup- 
pose. Why quote the Bible to such 
an one? Before he will accept Bible 
statements as proof of anything, he 
must be convinced that the Bible is 
more than a human book. This would, 
of course, introduce another subject 
for discussion, and a tremendous one, 
and the difficulties of one’s task would 
be greatly multiplied. 

Perhaps one’s auditor or reader 
is a self-styled ‘‘progressive thinker’’ 
who affirms, with an ‘‘I know-it-all’’ 
air, that the inspiration which gave us 
the Bible was what we now eall ‘‘hu- 
man genius,’’ and that the Bible is 
therefore inspired just, and only, as 

[ 20 ] 


METHOD OF REASONING 


Shakespeare and Milton are inspired. 
It has been said, and I think truth- 
fully, that modernists are ‘‘long on 
affirmation, but short on argument.”’ 
Women have been accused, doubtless 
falsely, of saying ‘‘because.’’ The full- 
orbed modernist is not likely to even 
say ‘‘because’’—he is usually content 
to say “‘it is.”’ As a rule, he is gen- 
erously equipped with history, mem- 
orized or surmised. Logic in his pres- 
entation of matters debatable is gen- 
erally quite scarce, and frequently it is 
conspicuous for its entire absence. 
Modernists have been known to smile 
at and make witty remarks about the 
logic of the ‘‘old-timers.’’ If the af- 
firmation of a well-seasoned modernist 
is questioned, or if his reasoning by 
analogy does not convince one, his 
placid ‘‘I’m surprised’’ expression 
will, in all probability, plainly ask: 
‘‘Where have you been all these years 
that you do not know the night of logic 
has gone—never to return?’’ He does 
not contend, as did Ingersoll, that the 
[21] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 








Bible ought to be scrapped. Instead, 
he talks and writes about the ‘‘val- 
uations’’ of the Bible, and professes 
reverence for it. But to him the Bible 
is not a book of authority, because it 
is not inspired—and likewise because 
the real seat of authority is one’s 
‘‘inner consciousness.’’ Why quote the 
Bible to him to prove anything? His 
supreme need is sufficient condescension 
to hear or read, with an open mind, a 
logical study on the integrity of the 
Bible. 

All who accept the Bible as God’s 
revelation to man must necessarily ac- 
cept Jesus as a fact and recognize His 
deity. On the other hand, the man 
who regards the Bible as an uninspired 
book, and who doubts the historicity 
of Jesus, will look askance at quotations 
from the Bible to prove that Jesus 
lived. And likewise will the modernist 
who admits that Jesus lived, but denies 
His deity. The Bible is of no value 
in argument with the one upon the 
historicity of Jesus, nor is it of value 

[ 22 ] 





METHOD OF REASONING 


in argument with the other upon the 
deity of Jesus. 

I do not think any man’s reverence 
for the Bible is more profound than 
mine. At first, with an open mind, and 
later sympathetically, I considered the 
modernistic position for a number of 
years—Il even tried to preach it. And 
down to the present time I have read 
the modernistic books. I feel certain 
that I know the modern viewpoint re- 
specting religious fundamentals. And 
the more I study the modernistic the- 
ories the stronger becomes my convic- 
tion that the Bible is God’s medium 
of communication with man. What I 
am now about to do ean not, therefore, 
be interpreted as an act of irreverence. 

As I close this chapter, I close the 
Bible. As the discussion turns from 
phase to phase of the subjects handled, 
the Bible and the Gospels will, of 
course, be occasionally mentioned. And 
a bit of Scripture may, now and then, 
appear in direct quotation. But no 
appeal will be made to the Bible. So 

[ 23 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


far as the argument is concerned, the 
Bible is now pushed aside—and it will 
be ignored as though it were not in 
existence. 


[ 24 ] 


“FACTS ARE FACTS” 


OW that the Bible is closed and 

can not be reopened until this 
discussion is concluded, the reader must 
not expect to do other than roam in the 
woods and fields of the secular sphere. 
He will, of course, find himself in cor- 
ners that have been made religious by 
men; but his journey will be down 
through the modern centuries of the 
world’s thought and life. Hence, my 
employment of the term ‘‘secular’’ to 
suggest the way on which he has 
started. 

The question is: Can he, while pur- 
suing the most sacred study known to 
man, find in the great secular world 
the birds of rich plumage and golden 
throat, the flowers of beautiful petal 
and sweet fragrance and the gushing 
springs his heart desires? I think he 
ean. Otherwise, I would be guilty of 

[ 25 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


extreme folly in volunteering my ser- 
vice as a temporary guide. 

I might add that I think we all too 
frequently neglect the secular in our 
quest of things high and ennobling. 
The secular world has a bad side— 
made up of dishonesty, immorality and 
all things vulgar and crude. It also 
has a good side—inlaid with honesty, 
virtue and all things honorable and 
eultural. Every principle of righteous- 
ness has been planted in the secular 
world, there to express itself in the 
tree of life. The beauty of the ages 
has all been stored for human appro- 
priation, and it flashes every day in 
the lives of people. The secular world 
is likewise eloquent with reliable and 
convincing testimony respecting Jesus 
of Nazareth and the claims of deity 
made for Him by His followers. 

A guide frequently calls attention 
to things that are in some way familiar 
to those who follow him. Yet he some- 
times points out features or charac- 
teristics that have not been carefully 

[ 26 ] 


“FACTS ARE FACTS” 


studied by his company, and occasion- 
ally he announces something altogether 
new at least to some whom he con- 
ducts. The journey upon which we 
are starting is not exceeding long—I 
have cut off many miles by condensing 
the discussion to the fewest possible 
paragraphs. It is, however, rather a 
circuitous journey, but I think I know 
the way. I have given careful at- 
tention to the contents of each chap- 
ter, and I feel sure that readers with 
interrogation-points in their minds 
respecting historic incident and facts 
of art will find accuracy. It has been 
a joy to arrange the itineracy, and now, 
if I can in any way aid my company 
of readers in seeing and appropriating 
what is along the route, ‘‘the pleasure 
will all be mine.’’ 

I trust that the reader, as he enters 
with me into this discussion, will not 
anticipate tedious translations and 
hair-splitting arguments. Should his 
anticipations be thus, he will be disap- 
pointed—and perhaps agreeably! 

[ 27 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


The microscope is not my hobby. 
I revel in the midst of things that can 
be seen with the naked eye. I shall, 
therefore, be content to point out 
things that are on the surface—facts 
with which all are more or less fa- 
miliar, and which none can question. 

Facts may remain undiscovered, 
and they may be covered up; but they 
ean be neither annihilated nor broken 
to pieces. Facts are as eternal and 
fixed as the stars. 

Moreover, facts are stubborn things. 
They never have the politeness to bow 
themselves out when they are in the 
way. And a fact is an awful thing 
when it plants itself squarely in the 
path of a pet theory. 

One can argue with a theory and 
enjoy it; but he can not argue with a 
fact. He can argue with a theory of 
light, but he can not argue with a ray 
of light—it is a fact which he must 
admit. He may have his own ideas 
about a theory of gravitation, and pre- 
sent them in a way fascinating to his 

[ 28 ] 


“FACTS ARE FACTS” 
own mind and confusing to the mind 
of his listener; but the fact that an ob- 
ject thrown up must come down is 
outside the pale of debate. 

I shall neither descend into the 
bowels of the earth nor ascend the 
pyramids of the skies in search of 
facts for this discussion. The facts I 
shall present to prove that Jesus lived 
are, of course, in history. The facts I 
need to support the proposition that 
Jesus was, and is, more than man are 
in the life of the world—seen with the 
human eye, heard by the human ear, 
felt in the human heart. And, bold 
as it may appear to say it, these facts 
are incontrovertible—no matter what 
the reasoning to account for them. 


[ 29 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


HY discuss the historicity of 

Jesus? This question may be in 
the mind of a reader who does not 
happen to know that Bauerism—a 
school of thought in Germany three- 
quarters of a century ago which re- 
garded Jesus as a mythical figure, and 
which, after attracting meager atten- 
tion, apparently passed—is now being 
revived in a way quite pronounced, 
and with a subtlety that is cause for 
alarm. I do not here intimate that 
we should entertain fears as to the per- 
manent future and ultimate triumph 
of the Christian religion. However, 
the program of Christianity has been 
repeatedly retarded by the battles it 
has had to wage with infidelity. And, 
although we may not always be con- 
scious of it, such a battle is now on 
—a battle in which it is difficult to lo- 

[ 30 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


—_——— 


cate many professing Christians, and 
even some ministers of renown. 

The New Theology, with which we 
are generally acquainted, does not 
deny the historicity of Jesus. But it 
entirely separates Jesus from the 
Christ. In its numerous discussions of 
Christology, it represents the Christ as 
purely a creation of human imagina- 
tion. It is but a short step from the 
denial of the historicity of the Christ 
to the denial of the historicity of Jesus. 
Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich 
Strauss belonged originally to the 
same school. Bauer participated in 
the controversy occasioned by Strauss’ 
“Life of Jesus,’’ and his investiga- 
tions ultimately led him to deny the 
historicity of Jesus. And thus great 
men are drifting to-day—satisfying 
themselves that the Christ is fictitious, 
then arriving at the conclusion that 
Jesus also is a fictitious product of 
the Christian religion which they claim 
Paul founded. Moreover, what we 
eall ‘‘liberal theology’? and ‘‘radical 

3 [31] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


theology’? are so closely related to 
each other—they have so much in com- 
mon—that they are like twins, and it 
is often difficult to tell them apart. 
Changing the figure, they are like ‘‘two 
peas in a pod.’’ Nor are they sep- 
arated by other peas—they are as close 
together as two peas can be. Where 
‘‘liberalism’’ ends and ‘‘radicalism’’ 
begins is a point so fine that a snappy 
discussion of it by expert debaters 
would make interesting reading. 

There are two ways of handling a 
matter in question—producing argu- 
ment and resorting to bluff. The lat- 
ter may succeed temporarily, but it 
adds nothing to a cause—and it lacks 
integrity. 

I once heard a preacher of extra- 
ordinary platform ability say to a 
great interdenominational audience: 
‘‘When a man intimates to me that 
Jesus did not live, I tell him to prove 
that Jesus did not live, and I spike 
his little popgun!’’ That was a bluff, 
and its temporary success was quite 

[ 32 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


marked. The victorious attitude, the 
high-pitched driving voice and _ the 
facial earnestness with which the 
speaker hurled the challenge sent it 
home. The audience applauded long 
enough for him to sip some water. 
But was there anything worth while 
in the utterance? Absolutely not. 

The demand that the unbeliever 
prove the non-historicity of Jesus or 
keep silent is out of line with a law 
—unwritten, but ancient and inflexible 
—which applies in every sphere of 
human activity, and which is essen- 
tial to human progress. Here is a 
present-day concrete illustration. <A 
friend is trying to sell me life in- 
surance, and I question the soundness 
of the company he represents. He does 
not say to me: ‘*Prove that my com- 
pany is unsound.’’ Instead, he pre- 
sents evidence to prove the soundness 
of his company. I may doubt, and 
verbally question, any proposition—it 
is my privilege so to do. But the man 
submitting it to me would depart from 

[ 33 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


general custom—world custom, all-time 
eustom—should he demand that I 
prove its lack of merit. It is his 
proposition; he is urging it upon me, 
and it is his obligation to convince me 
that it is good. Everything of value 
must, in obedience to the spirit of the 
ages which pushes the world forward, 
establish itself in the minds of the 
people it approaches. The Christian 
religion is not, in any sense, an excep- 
tion. It takes the initiative, it might 
be called an aggression, and the bur- 
den of establishing its own claims will 
ever rest entirely upon its own shoul- 
ders. 

I overheard a conversation between 
two gentlemen on a bus from Boston to 
Worcester. One remarked: ‘‘There is 
no history to prove that Jesus lived.”’ 
The other replied: ‘‘There is an abun- 
dance of history to prove that Jesus 
lived.’’ Neither knew what he was 
talking about. 

There is history to prove that Jesus 
lived, but it is not abundant. It must 

[ 34 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


be borne in mind that argument for the 
historicity of Jesus is warned by biased 
criticism to steer clear of everything 
that bears the earmarks of tradition. 
The big question-mark can not be ig- 
nored in sound argument. Nor is it 
wise to ignore anything that resembles 
a real question-mark. If one’s oppo- 
nent questions the validity of an argu- 
ment, and has any ground on which to 
stand, even if it be sand and shifting, it 
is better to concede the point and turn 
to some other phase of the discussion. I 
am not debating with any one in par- 
ticular, but the principle remains the 
same. Hence, the concessions I shall 
be forced to make in this discussion 
may be disappointing to some of my 
readers. 

Were I an outside inquirer, I think 
the Catacombs of Rome would convince 
me that the Christ was not a fictitious 
person. According to conclusions of re- 
search, which have not been proven un- 
reliable, some of the representations in 
the Catacombs date back to a period so 


[ 85 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


near the beginning that to cast them 
aside seems wanton waste of good evi- 
dence. But it must be done to pacify the 
more exacting critics. Yet these same 
critics appeal to Egyptian and other 
archeology whenever it suits their pur- 
pose to do so. The Standard Dictionary 
defines ‘‘archeology”’ as ‘‘the science or 
study of history from relics and re- 
mains of antiquities.’’ Consistency is 
anything but a jewel in the he of 
modernistic critics. 

J likewise value much of the tes- 
timony of the Church Fathers. I see 
in it a harmony and a continuity 
which reveal strength that, in my own 
mind, the eritics have not broken 
down. At the close of the first cen- 
tury and on into the second, there 
were differences of opinion on doc- 
trinal matters, but there was no con- 
troversy about the historicity of Jesus. 
To the Christians of that day, Jesus 
was a fact—a fact so universally ac- 
cepted that there was none to ques- 
tion it. This the critics will not deny. 

[ 36 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


Yet they ring in ‘‘tradition’”’ again, 
and the evidence of the Fathers must 
be ignored also. 

Now that I am without appeal to 
the Bible, the Catacombs and the Fa- 
thers, I am left only secular history out 
of which to gather evidence that Jesus 
lived. I am not vain enough to think 
that I am discovering for my readers 
the bits of history now to be cited. 
One could no more ‘‘find something’’ 
in history—especially upon this sub- 
ject—than he could manufacture his- 
tory. All there is in history on the 
subject under consideration has been 
lifted up to view by the religious wri- 
ters of the centuries. The ground we 
must now go over has been covered a 
thousand times, and then again. Now- 
adays, the individuality of procedure 
is an author’s only apology for invit- 
ing his readers to journey with him 
to the range-lines history has estab- 
lished. And when I say, ‘‘Come with 
me,’’? it is because I think that my 
method of approach may be of a little 

[37 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


value at least to a few of my studious 
readers. 

Secular history pays the larger at- 
tention to men of state and war. This 
is especially true of remote secular his- 
tory. Then, there is the observation 
that the early Roman writers appear to 
have paid but small attention to relig- 
ious sects. It is thought by careful 
investigators that they did not give 
‘‘foreign’’ and ‘‘peculiar’’ religions 
sufficient thought even to clearly un- 
derstand the difference between Ju- 
daism and Christianity. Therefore, 
it should not be surprising to find early 
secular history either giving Jesus 
meager attention or ignoring Him al- 
together. Nevertheless, Jesus was not 
entirely left out of early-century sec- 
ular history. And I shall now request 
the reader to look carefully at the ref- 
erences to Him in the history of that 
period. | 

Pliny, when governor of Bithynia, 
wrote to Trajan the emperor about 
the trouble he was having with the 

[ 38 ] 


JESUS LIVED 
Christians, and sought advice as to 
future procedure. The date of his 
letter was not later than 112 A. D. 
In it he described the situation in 
his jurisdiction and mentioned Christ. 
Every method available to hostile ecrit- 
icism has been employed, and over- 
worked, to throw out Pliny’s testi- 
mony; but that the prolonged effort 
has not proven satisfactory is shown 
‘by the controversy relative to the letter 
still conspicuously current. Pliny’s 
letter remains to be wrestled with by 
every critic who seeks to prove the 
non-historicity of Jesus. It has been 
urged that Pliny could not have had 
first-hand knowledge of Jesus, and 
that therefore his letter to Trajan can 
not be accepted as reliable history. If 
all history had to be composed of first- 
hand knowledge, accepted history 
would not bulk so large as it does. 
Pliny had a situation on his hands, 
a situation in which a great multitude 
of Christians figured, and he knew the 
name of the One they followed—it was 


[39 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


the one great effort of his courts to 
try to compel Christians to profane 
that name. It appears that there were 
no debates around Bithynia in those 
days about the historicity of the man 
whom the people honored with their 
devotion. Some have written ‘‘for- 
gery’’ across Pliny’s letter, but that 
word has been written across so many 
things that it does not scare folk any 
more. Until something is proven a 
forgery, so that the majority of the 
leading investigators can see it, the 
‘‘forgery-provers’’ will not have ac- 
complished their task. 

Suetonius, writing about 120 A. D., 
refers to Christians having been pun- 
ished by Nero, and to Jews, who raised 
a commotion at the instigation of one, 
Chrestus, having been expelled from 
Rome by Claudius. There is much 
division of opinion over this, especially 
because Chrestus, instead of Christus, 
is the word employed. However, other 
names have been twisted in history, 
and this fact is not a major reason for 

[ 40 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


discarding the history. In my opinion, 
Suetonius, in his lives of the Cesars 
from Julius Cesar to Domitian, is by 
no means an unimportant witness. But 
I shall not insist upon starring him. 
Tacitus, born in 55 A. D., testifies 
that the Christians whom Nero pun- 
ished were named from Christ, who 
was put to death by Pontius Pilate in 
the reign of Tiberius. Numerous ef- 
forts have been made to drive Tacitus 
out of court, but he persists in remain- 
ing and occupying the witness-chair. 
Hochart, a French critic, tried to prove 
that Poggio Bracciolini produced this 
testimony in the name of Tacitus as 
late as the fifteenth century; but his 
conjecture was so wild that even the 
extreme liberalists have practically ig- 
nored it. There seems no way to pro- 
nounce Tacitus’ reference to Christ 
unauthentic, and the best the opposi- 
tion can do is to affirm that it was 
based on tradition. I shall not argue 
this matter further than to suggest 
that Tacitus appears to have been a 
[ 41 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


wise old writer who was not a ‘‘nod- 
der’’ at his desk, and that he lived 
far enough back in the first century 
to have secured accurate information. 

Flavius Josephus, a Jew, and a 
scion of an eminent priestly family, 
was born in Jerusalem in 37 or 38 
A. D. When a boy in his teens, he 
was regarded as a marvel—so_ per- 
sistent was he in the investigation 
of matters judicial. The historian in 
him was evidently developed early. 
Hence it is reasonable to suppose that 
he left no stone unturned to secure 
accurate information concerning things 
he heard the older people talking about. 
And be it remembered that he was 
born only four or five years after the 
year in which Jesus is said to have 
been crucified. 

Twice in his ‘‘ Antiquities’’ he men- 
tions Jesus. In one passage he says 
Jesus was the Christ, that He was a 
doer of wonderful works, that He was 
condemned to the cross by Pilate, and 
that He appeared alive the third day. 

[ 42] 


JESUS LIVED 


In the other he states that James, who 
was cited before the Sanhedrin judges, 
was the brother of Jesus, who was 
called Christ. 

In vain have atheists, infidels, rad- 
icals and liberals endeavored to explain 
away the testimony of Josephus. And 
many people think it has been done. I 
have an idea that some of my readers 
will pause about here, and, in their 
minds, say to me: ‘‘Do you not know 
that the passages in Josephus, refer- 
ring to Jesus, have long since been 
labeled ‘interpolations,’ and aban- 
doned?’’ Frankly, I do not know this. 
I will admit that those passages have 
been labeled ‘‘interpolations,’’ espe- 
cially the first. But I am not ready 
to admit that they have been aban- 
doned—not even by the liberal critics. 
No one who reads even a little along 
eritical lines will make such an admis- 
sion—he knows that it simply is not 
true. Moreover, the ‘‘interpolation’’ 
scarecrow does not shoo me away from 
Josephus. If there is anything in Jo- 

[ 43 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


sephus that supports the historicity of 
Jesus, I need and must have it—and 
I shall hover near until I get it. 
There are two conspicuous classes 
in every school of thought—the ma- 
jority who ‘‘catch things on the run”’ 
and make sweeping, unqualified state- 
ments, and the few who are controlled 
by a desire to investigate and know the 
reason why. In the New Theology 
school, this classification is extraordi- 
narily observable. The majority, in 
sermon and printed article, seem con- 
tent to dispose of things with a wave 
of the hand—and there is seldom any- 
thing left of what they smite. For 
instance, it is quite common for them 
to dispose of the references in Jose- 
plus by saying, careless like, and with 
a knowing look: “It is now well 
known”’ or, ‘‘It is generally conceded 
that the passages in Josephus are in- 
terpolations.’? The few who actually 
delve do not make such sweeping state- 
ments—they sharpen their knives and 
pare away as much as possible of the 
[ 44 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


Josephus passages, but usually leave 
a little. I prefer the latter. They are, 
of course, hard to deal with; but they 
leave something for the consolation of 
their opponents—they, at least, leave 
the hook on which the interpolation 
was hung! 

Now, let us look at the Josephus 
passages for a few moments and see 
whether or not there is anything in 
them that remains as testimony in 
support of the historicity of Jesus. 
We shall simply take a glance at the 
process of cutting away the evidence. 
There would be nothing gained by an 
extended view of the operation, for the 
reason that I do not need what they 
pare off—I need only what they let 
remain. In other words, I am, for my 
present purpose, as well satisfied with 
the conclusion of the liberal thinker 
who knows what he is about as I would 
be with that of the most devout, con- 
servative student. 

The exaggerations possible, and 
probable, in the Slavonic version of 

[ 45 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Josephus are, of course, made a basis 
of attack upon the passages in question. 
The novice critic—and he is quite nu- 
merous just now—usually thinks he has 
won his point, and stops when he has 
brandished the Slavonie additions. But 
the riper student wanders back through 
the centuries, pausing to catch the 
drift of every controversy over the Jo- 
sephus passages, nor does he stop until 
he has at least interviewed Jerome, 
Eusebius and Origen. Of course, Euse- 
bius is not given a lengthy interview 
—he appears to be on the wrong side 
of the question. But Origen and 
Jerome, who somewhat sides with 
Origen, are starred to prove that the 
references to the miraculous, and the 
statement, ‘‘He was the Christ,’’ are 
something other than what Josephus 
wrote. Then begins the conjectural dis- 
cussion about the impossibility of the 
first passage because it is foreign to 
the context, Josephus’ Jewish con- 
nections and sentiments making the 
possibility of his having in any way 
[ 46 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


recognized the Christian faith prepos- 
terous, etc. 

Inasmuch as all efforts to prove 
that the references in Josephus to 
Jesus are outright fabrications have 
failed, the controversy rages about the 
phraseology which associates Jesus 
with the supernatural. But no matter 
what direction the modernistic discus- 
sion of this matter takes, if it be con- 
ducted by a real investigator of the 
school, it usually pulls up somewhere 
with an admission that Josephus made 
reference to Jesus. Many such admis- 
sions could be cited, but space will be 
given only to three. 

The lengthy article on the Josephus 
testimony in the Encyclopedia of Re- 
lgion and Ethics, edited by Hastings, 
attacks the miraculous—just as one 
might expect—and disposes of it in a 
very keen way. Its great battle is with 
the first passage. However, that ar- 
ticle runs against a stone wall in the 
second and makes the following admis- 
sion: 

4 [ 47 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 








‘“‘This passage is altogether beyond suspl- 
eion. . . . The manner in which Jesus is here 
mentioned coincides exactly with what we should 
expect from Josephus.’’ 


In his book, ‘‘The Historicity of 
Jesus,’? Prof. Shirley Jackson Case, 
of the University of Chicago, discusses 
the Josephus passages at considerable 
length, and in his treatment the follow- 
ing admission appears: 


‘‘Thus Josephus proves to be of only slight 
value as a source of information about Jesus. 
He appears to have known of Jesus’ existence, 
yet he mentions him only casually and on but 
one occasion.’’ 


Prof. Arthur Drews, a radical of 
the radicals, in his book, ‘‘The Christ 
Myth,’’ wrestles laboriously with the 
Josephus passages, and in a way ad- 
mits that Josephus may have known of 
‘fa man of the name of Jesus who was 
called Christ.”’ 

The Jewish opinion would nat- 
urally be hostile to retaining in Jose- 
phus testimony of any sort concerning 
Jesus. Hence, I think an admission 

[ 48 ] 


JESUS LIVED 


from the Jewish viewpoint will fit in 
here quite snugly. The Jewish Ency- 
clopedia says: 


‘‘Josephus mentions John the Baptist; 
James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus Him- 
self.’’ 


Both the Jewish scholars and the 
modernistiec Christian scholars appear 
willing for Josephus to testify that 
Jesus lived; but to let Josephus tes- 
tify that Jesus was the Christ and a 
miracle-worker—never ! 

All right. Let it go at that. Per- 
sonally, I accept the miraculous attrib- 
uted to Jesus by both Josephus and the 
New Testament. However, I shall not 
intrude miracles as evidence in this 
discussion. J do not need them—not 
even in subsequent chapters to raise 
Jesus above mankind. If, when we 
reach that part of the thesis, my con- 
tention that Jesus of Nazareth was, 
and is, more than man can not stand 
without appeal to the virgin birth, the 
feeding of the multitudes, the quelling 

[ 49 | 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


of the storm, the healing of the sick 
and the bodily resurrection, let it fall! 

Therefore, let the references in 
Josephus to Jesus be stripped of the 
miraculous, and let the phrase, ‘‘the 
Christ,’’ be cut out entirely. I neither 
need nor wish to prove by Josephus 
that Jesus was the Christ or that He 
was in any sense divine. In the inter- 
est of my proposition to establish the 
fact that Jesus lived, without appeal to 
the Bible, and inasmuch as I have 
surrendered the testimony of the Cata- 
combs and the Fathers, I am willing to 
join hands with the modernists in 
cutting the testimony of Josephus 
down to one thing—the fact that Jesus 
lived. 

Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus have 
been grilled unmercifully for nearly a 
century—this, to say nothing of prior 
ordeals through which they passed. 
But to this day they stand unim- 
peached as witnesses to the fact that 
Jesus lived. Moreover, Suetonius could 
yet be questioned—in an emergency! 

[ 50 | 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


| pees phrase, ‘‘The New Theology,’’ 

is current, and likewise are the 
terms ‘‘liberalist,’? ‘‘modernist’’? and 
‘“progressive.’’ Hence, they must be 
recognized. Besides, they are convenient 
—they enable the writer or speaker to 
differentiate and classify. However, 
while the New Theology, which evolved 
out of Higher and Lower Criticism, 
is more modern than the theory of evo- 
lution, it is by no means modern. Much 
of its present structure obtained cen- 
turies ago, and its entire structure was 
practically completed before our pres- 
ent-day new theologians were born. 
Rabbi Ben Ezra, of the eleventh cen- 
tury, performed hard labor on its 
foundation, nor was he the first on the 
job. Spinoza, another Jew, was a 
foreman on the construction in the 
seventeenth century. Lessing, Herder 


[51] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


and Eichhorn worked on it in the eigh- 
teenth century, and Bauer and Strauss 
and numerous others in the nineteenth 
century. The men whose names have 
been prominently connected with the 
New Theology during the past forty 
years have put on furbelows and 
painted, frescoed and otherwise touched 
up the building, but they have not 
wrought fundamental changes in it. 

Some one may ask: ‘‘Why even a 
brief chapter on the New Theology ?”’ 
It is a necessary apology for succeed- 
ing chapters. 

In the preceding chapter it was 
stated that the New Theology with 
which we are generally acquainted does 
not regard Jesus as a myth. In its 
fundamental teaching, it eschews the 
Christ, but it accepts Jesus as a fact. 
Hence, it should be clearly borne in 
mind that we are not here dealing with 
what the moderate modernists call 
**radicalism.’’ 

In his lecture, ‘‘The Ethics of Jesus 
of Nazareth,’’ to which I listened with 

[ 52 J 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


note-book in hand a quarter of a cen- 
tury ago, the late Dr. Lyman Abbott 
affirmed that the young man from Naz- 
areth, being familiar with Old Testa- 
ment prophecy and the Jewish hope, 
decided to be the Messiah. The mean- 
ing of this is unmistakably clear. The 
young Nazarene was not the Anointed 
of God in any special sense—He was 
only a man, and He followed a self-de- 
veloped vision. With this sweeping 
statement the distinguished editor of 
the Outlook mirrored one of the three 
major conclusions of the New Theology. 

Until recent years, New Theology 
writing was usually enigmatical. So 
veiled were the ‘‘assured results’’ that 
only members of the senior class clearly 
comprehended them. Now it is differ- 
ent. Notwithstanding the fact that the 
major conclusions pressed upon us as 
‘‘new’’ and ‘‘shiny”’ are quite ancient, 
modernism is to be congratulated upon 
having ‘‘progressed’’ sufficiently to 
make itself understood by people of or- 
dinary intelligence. 

[53 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


To get ‘‘the vision’? we hear so 
much about, one must read the entire 
circle of modernistic literature. While 
‘the vision’? can be comprehended 
within three brief statements (and I 
shall thus put it in the next para- 
graph), modernism resorts to ver- 
bosity without end to blaze it forth. 
Specialty is the order of the day, and 
each modernistic specialist must neces- 
sarily write a book describing the span- 
gle of ‘‘the vision’’ he has mastered. 

In a final, logical analysis, New 
Theology literature, taken as a whole, 
‘‘comforts’’ us with the following 
‘‘brand new’’ conclusions of the long 
ago: 

1. The Bible is a collection of un- 
inspired literature which, owing to its 
peculiar merit, has survived the on- 
slaughts of the centuries. 

2. God is a concept—‘‘an abstract 
general notion or idea.’’ In other 
words, instead of God having created 
man in His own image, man created 
God in his own imagination. 

[ 54 J 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


3. Jesus was a man, and only a man, 
who was built upon a big plan and 
had far-reaching vision, and who 
should, therefore, be classed with the 
world’s great teachers. His original 
and authoritative manner of restating 
truth is valuable, but His supreme 
value to mankind is the content of 
His life. (It is not now uncommon 
to find in modernistic literature an in- 
timation that while Jesus was a good 
man, probably the best of men, He was 
not sinless in the strict sense of the 
word. And modernistic literature is 
quite explicit respecting the Christ. 
He exists in the mind only—the linger- 
ing of old-time superstition, belief in 
dogma to which the unprogressive are 
slaves. ) 

This is an exemplification, par ex- 
cellence, of ‘‘taking away the lame 
man’s erutch and leaving him nothing 
to lean upon.’’ 

New Theology folk must be evo- 
lutionists—otherwise they would not be 
up to date. Evolution, as applied to 

[ 55 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


origins, is about the most static thing 
that troubles human thought. Never- 
theless, the ‘‘progressive’’? man is of 
necessity an evolutionist. He may 
know nothing about evolution, but he 
must pretend to advocate it—to keep 
his place in the ‘‘progressive”’ line. 

A small eompany of mutual friends, 
in attendance upon a religious conven- 
tion, were visiting in a hotel room. The 
pastor of a prominent church an- 
nounced that he was an evolutionist, 
and that he hesitated not to let the 
world know it. One of the company 
innocently asked: ‘‘Why are you an 
evolutionist?’’ The self-proclaimed 
evolutionist was dumb as an oyster, 
and the blankness in his face indicated 
that there was probably a vacuum in 
his head—at the place where a ready 
answer for his faith should have been 
stored. Not all evolutionists would 
have been thus silenced. An evolution- 
ist conversant with the subject would 
at least have recited the ‘‘horse 
foot’’ argument or given us the latest 

[ 56 ] 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


news about “‘ Pithecanthropus erectus.’’ 
That unfortunate evolutionist did not 
appear to know that the horse had 
changed its style of footwear. Nor did 
he seem aware of the fact that for a 
generation “‘ Pithecanthropus’’ has been 
the bane of ambitious boys and girls at 
spelling-bees. His helpless look in- 
dicated that he could not even think 
of ‘‘protoplasm.’”’ It is said that there 
are half-baked evolutionists. But evi- 
dently he had not been baked at all— 
probably he had been rolled out, but 
not yet put into the oven. 

Is the evolutionary viewpoint mod- 
ern? Had it been born when Darwin’s 
‘“‘Origin of Species’? was published, it 
would now be sixty-seven years old. 
But back of Charles Darwin were 
such men as Erasmus Darwin, La- 
marek, Linneus and Buffon of the 
eighteenth century, and Aldrovandus 
and Gesner of the sixteenth century, 
proclaiming theories of evolution. And 
even Greek philosophers presented 
theories of evolution. Aristotle was an 

[ 57 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


evolutionist. Two centuries before 
Christ the reading part of Greece had 
to digest thought food such as the fol- 
lowing: 

‘There had been continuous succession of 
animal forms, during which the elder and less 
perfect had gradually given rise to the younger 
and more perfect, themselves in process of giv- 
ing rise to yet more perfect forms. Life itself 
arose through the direct metamorphosis of in- 
organic matter.’’ 


Not quite like evolutionary reading 
of to-day, but about as intelligible! 

We speak of ‘‘the theory of evolu- 
tion’’ for the sake of convenience. As 
a matter of fact, from Aristotle’s day 
to ours there have been theories of 
evolution. And to-day the evolutionists 
are split into schools that differ very 
materially. This, of course, makes no 
difference to numerous avowed evolu- 
tionists—they do not know which 
school they are in, but they are evo- 
lutionists and ‘‘up to date.’’ 

Evolution came rattling down 
through the centuries looking for a 

[58 ] 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


friend—to help it evolve. It found that 
friend in the Higher Criticism, and now 
it finds its soul mate in the New The- 
ology. And so it turns out that the 
New Theology, which is quite ancient, 
is lending itself, body and soul, to the 
advancement of the real modern view- 
point—evolution, which is very ancient. 

Jt appears that there is nothing an 
informed evolutionist who occupies a 
pulpit or a college position dreads so 
much as questions about miracles. In 
1920, the late Prof. Alfred Fairhurst 
addressed a questionnaire to a selected 
number of leading educators. The an- 
swers to the question respecting New 
Testament miracles would indicate that 
those unfortunate men were the vic- 
tims of a bolt from the clear sky. Their 
answers to that question, now pre- 
served in Professor Fairhurst’s book, 
‘¢ Atheism in Our Universities,’’ are too 
pathetic to smile at. 

Charles Darwin assumed a miracle 
to start with. But every scientist 
knows that if a single miracle stands 

[ 59 | 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


the theory of evolution falls. Resort is 
made by some, who try to maintain 
their standing as both teachers of Chris- 
tianity and advocates of evolution, to 
what they eall ‘‘Theistic Evolution.”’ 
But, in all the light of teaching from 
the pens of authoritative evolution- 
ists, ‘‘Theistic Evolution’’ is a mis- 
nomer. The theory of evolution as a 
whole can not in any way recognize 
the miraculous. 

The evolutionary theory, therefore, 
can not logically recognize the in- 
spiration or truthfulness of the Bible, 
the deity of Jesus or God. The deity 
of Jesus, the greatest of miracles, if 
admitted by evolutionists, would wreck 
their theory. But the general public 
has ever persisted in just smiling at 
the ‘‘modern’’ discovery of origins 
which the ancients discussed and 
handed down to our time. And how to 
make evolution popular has been a 
question—itself quite ancient. Now, 
evolution has the right of way in press, 
pulpit and college—and even in high 

[ 60 ] 


THE NEW THEOLOGY 


school. And for all this it is indebted 
to the New Theology. The New Theol- 
ogy—which pronounces the Bible just 
one of the world’s sacred books, makes 
God a concept and declares Jesus to 
have been a man only—is evolution’s 
best friend and closest agent to the 
public. 

It is claimed that the New Theology 
has accomplished wonders in clearing 
the religious atmosphere. ‘The achieve- 
ments of the New Theology can be 
stated in very small space. It has 
wrecked the faith of unnumbered indi- 
viduals, added greatly to the prestige 
of atheism in college and university and 
destroyed the harmony of practically 
every religious communion. However, 
it must be given credit for having 
mightily aided ‘‘modern’’ progress—in 
clearing the way for an ancient ‘‘hy- 
pothesis’’! 


[61 ] 


A GROUP OF FACTS 


PNG a preliminary argument in sup- 

port of the proposition that Jesus 
of Nazareth was, and is, more than 
man, I shall refer briefly to a group 
of significant facts that are as appar- 
ent as is the shining of the sun. 

All our lives we have seen the sun 
ascending and descending the skies 
every day and the stars twinkling every 
night. But, unless our interest in as- 
tronomy is above normal, we pay but 
little attention to those luminaries—it 
is probable that we sometimes go for 
days or weeks without giving them 
thought of any kind. 

Jesus is a fact in every-day human 
life. But we are so used to Him that 
we are inchned to take His ever-pres- 
ence as a matter of course. Hence, 
perhaps, we are not so tremendously 
impressed with His fixedness as we 


[ 62 ] 


A GROUP OF FACTS 


should be. Jesus was in the life of 
our communities when we were born, 
and we have seen Him as fixed as the 
sun all our lives. Yet we pursue our 
daily tasks and pleasures without won- 
dering much about it. Some special- 
izing will be done in succeeding chap- 
ters, but in this I shall simply make 
running comment upon Jesus in every- 
day life—pointing out things visible to 
skeptics, infidels and atheists, as well 
as to believers. 

Much could be said about Sunday, 
which, in one way or another, is set 
apart not only as a day of rest, but in 
honor of Jesus. Numerous books have 
been written upon this subject, which 
is so fraught with interest to humanity 
that it will doubtless call forth many 
more. JI shall not discuss it save to 
say that a supposition of Sunday as it 
is, had Jesus not lived, would be abso- 
lutely without foundation. 

Jesus stands before all the people 
of every community in church build- 
ings. In the larger towns and cities 

5 [ 63 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


the public sees Him in hospitals, res- 
cue missions and other institutions 
that have taken on material form. In 
every part of town, on all streets, along 
country roads—everywhere—Jesus in 
some way manifests Himself. He is 
even seen in, and speaks out of, the cold 
marble of the cemetery. 

The hotels are not all owned or kept 
by Christians—they are owned by 
Christians, Jews, unbelievers and cor- 
porations composed of moneyed men 
and women of all religious persuasions 
and of no religious persuasion. More- 
over, if judged by what one sometimes 
sees in hotels, and by raids on hotels, 
all hotels are not centers of righteous- 
ness. However, at what hotel can one 
register where he does not find in his 
room a copy of the Bible? Perhaps 
some one answers: ‘‘Of course, the 
hotel guest finds the Bible in his room 
—the Gideons put it there.’? Admit- 
ted. Nevertheless, the Bible is there. 
And when the guest opens the Bible, 
the first thing he sees is a page which 

[ 64 ] 


A GROUP OF FACTS 


presents the following cordial invi- 
tation: 

‘‘Any man whose occupation is traveling 
for commercial business, who believes in Jesus 
Christ as the eternal Son of God, aecepts Him 
as his personal Saviour, and endeavors to fol- 
low Him in his daily life, and who has belonged 
for three months or longer to some local church 
that makes such belief and endeavor a condi- 
tion of membership, may become a Gideon by 
pledging himself to wear the Gideon emblem, 
and complying with the by-laws governing ap- 
plications. ”’ 

And why the directory of churches, 
which constantly calls the attention of 
the traveling public to Jesus, in the 
hotel lobby? ‘‘The church directory is 
in the hotels because the churches pay 
for it,’? some one volunteers. Admit- 
ted also. I am pointing to a fact—the 
chureh directory on the lobby wall. 

The daily press is not owned or con- 
trolled entirely by Christians. It has 
been intimated again and again that 
Jews have much to do with the control 
of the secular press as a whole. It is 
certain that daily papers are owned, 

[ 65 | 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


and often edited, by Jews and by oth- 
ers who do not believe in Jesus, as well 
as by Christians. Yet what city could 
one visit whose Saturday newspapers 
do not regularly and systematically 
announce the Sunday meetings to be 
held in the name of Jesus? ‘‘But this 
is a custom that started on a gratuitous 
plan and was then commercialized,’’ it 
may be urged. Admitted again. How- 
ever, I still point to the fact that the 
announcements are made regularly in 
the daily press. 

Not even the grossly irreverent can 
completely forget Jesus—not for a sin- 
ele day. No matter where they roam, 
they see Him in stone, in the press, 
on the sign-board—everywhere. I do 
not say it irreverently, but Jesus is 
conspicuous in even current profanity. 
And it is commonly known that the av- 
erage wicked man, when overtaken by 
dire calamity, ceases profaning the 
name of Jesus and mutters it in prayer. 
‘The power of superstition even in 
our day’’—this may be the skeptic’s 


[ 66 ] 


A GROUP OF FACTS 


explanation. Call it ‘‘superstition”’ or 
by some other name—it makes no dif- 
ference. That men thus recognize Jesus 
is a fact universally known. 

Where may one live, where may one 
go, where may one look, without com- 
ing into some sort of contact with 
Jesus? He is as inevitable in countries 
that have been kissed by the sun of 
civilization as is the trade upon which 
they exist. And in the next chapter we 
shall see Him in the nations that are 
called heathen. 


[ 67 ] 


THE GLOBE AROUND 


JAX SCORE and five years after the 
initial organization of the Young 
People’s Society of Christian Hn- 
deavor, its founder began delivering 
his now famous lecture, ‘‘Christian 
Endeavor the World Around.’’ This 
movement passed mysteriously through 
denominational walls and made itself 
at home in practically all Protestant 
communions. It established itself in 
remote places—pausing not until it 
made itself an inspiration to toilers in 
the lumber and mining camps and to 
sailors on the wide seas. It went 
around the globe as if upon wings, and 
in its meetings of testimony and hymns 
of praise the tongues of earth joined. 
What is the basis of its psychology? 
A name—ZJesus. 
The Young Men’s Christian Asso- 
ciation and the Red Cross have like- 
[ 68 ] 


THE GLOBE AROUND 


wise circled the globe. ‘‘They render 
a very material service and are there- 
fore popular,’’ it may be said. True. 
But in what name is their service ren- 
dered? The name of Jesus. 

Back of the present-day Christian 
movements, which travel so fast and 
gain membership and universal rec- 
ognition so rapidly, is the history of 
Christian missions. And it is a history 
of heroism, romance, enthusiasm, fidel- 
ity and persistence without parallel. 

It would require a large volume to 
record, in even substantial brief, this 
tremendous history. Besides, I am 
not attempting history—I am simply 
pointing to some of the stupendous 
things that have been inspired and per- 
petuated by the name of Jesus. Hence, 
my reference to Christian missionary 
endeavor—for the sake of emphasis, 
and nothing more—will be brief. 

Professional missionaries were not 
numerous in the early centuries. Daily 
toilers, merchants, soldiers, sailors, and 
even captives and slaves, preached 


[ 69 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Jesus whithersoever they went. Tray- 
elers carried the name of Jesus to the 
countries they visited, and it remained 
in every country wherein it was pro- 
claimed. Those preachers did not 
conquer with the sword, they did not 
move by rule, they had no system. 
They were impelled by a mighty force, 
and simply told the story of Jesus to 
whomsoever would listen. 

Yet the Christian religion spread 
so rapidly and extensively during the 
first two centuries and a half that 
Origen thought it would soon supplant 
the religions of the heathen. The 
fourth century found the Christian 
religion entrenched throughout a vast 
area, and its influence upon the life of 
that day was marvelous. It is also 
thought by some investigators that by 
the middle of the fourth century the 
Christian religion had found its way to 
southern India. 

About the beginning of the fourth 
century the laity was forbidden to 
preach, and the church and state began 

[ 70 ] 


THE GLOBE AROUND 


ae 


uniting. Then began the long night 
of horrors, which became more densely 
black and terrible as centuries dragged 
past—a period of nauseating history 
the world would like to forget. How- 
ever, some were daring enough to do 
missionary work on their own initiative 
throughout the Dark Ages. Also, it 
may be remarked that the organized 
church did some missionary work— 
in a very worldly way. But the mis- 
sionary fervor had passed. 

The skeptic has something here to 
wonder at. Why did Jesus survive 
those centuries of hell, whose lurid 
flames licked the skies in His name, 
and again stand before the world a 
charming personality? Why was ro- 
mantic and heroic missionary endeavor 
resumed, and why did it succeed? 

Moreover, periodicity in the history 
of missions is quite pronounced from 
the Reformation to the sailing of 
Carey, and even since Carey’s day, 
though greatly modified. But no pe- 
riod of stress and storm, no period of 


Bea 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


worldliness, no period of inactivity, has 
discontinued the onward stride of 
Jesus to the uttermost parts of the 
earth. 

The spread and effect of the Chris- 
tian religion constitute the most out- 
standing fact in the life of the world 
—a fact inexplicable, no matter from 
what philosophical or psychological 
angle viewed. When the difficulties, 
embarrassments and hardships that 
have been linked with Christian mis- 
sions from the beginning to the pres- 
ent are considered, the fact that Jesus’ 
name is held sacred by people in prac- 
tically every spot on earth and that 
it is lisped in prayer and praise by all 
the tongues is the great modern mir- 
acle. 

Jesus in missionary enterprise has 
defied the misunderstandings and divi- 
sions and bickerings and lethargy of 
His people in the home lands, wars 
that have set world progress back and 
retarded faith, storms at sea, wild ani- 
mals of the jungle, native hostility, 

[72] 


THE GLOBE AROUND 


edicts of governments, brigandage, so- 
cial ostracism, pestilence and priva- 
tions indescribable. Yet His temples 
of worship have arisen like magic in all 
countries. 

Religions other than His have at- 
tempted to establish themselves the 
world around, but the history of mod- 
ern pagan missionary enterprise spells 
‘‘failure.’’ Pagan missions in the 
more enlightened countries attract oc- 
casional headlines, and they sometimes 
endure for a period; but they exert no 
influence upon governments, business 
or society—they amount to nothing. 

Christian missions endure, expand 
and dictate policies of human living. 
Their chapels stand fresh and inviting 
amid heathen temples that are decay- 
ing. Their hospitals relieve suffering 
and win thousands from idolatry every 
year, their colporters unceasingly dis- 
tribute literature which changes the 
worship and lives of other thousands, 
and their evangelists turn still other 
thousands to Jesus. 

[73] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


The names of ancient deities lose 
their power to attract and the names 
of ancient teachers grow dim in Giv- 
ilization’s advancing light; but the 
name of Jesus remains, and shines, in 
whatever land proclaimed. His name 
is bright in the lands of darkness, and 
it is brighter still in the lands of day. 

I feel certain that the history of 
Christian missions, if carefully studied, 
would prove conclusively to any de- 
veloped, unbiased mind that Jesus of 
Nazareth has power in earth superior 
to that of any other teacher or group of 
teachers—and that this power is more 
than the power of mere man. 


Wee 


REFORM 


TiS chapter, as also the one im- 
mediately preceding it, might be 
called ‘‘a general survey of a great 
field.’? Each subject touched upon in 
these chapters could be expanded into 
a book, and then it would not be ex- 
hausted. However, I think paragraph 
references will suffice for my purpose. 
The eight succeeding chapters will each 
deal specifically with a given subject 
—this for the greater emphasis. 
Buddhism, Mohammedanism and 
Confucianism in the general practice 
of a people are not the teachings of 
their founders in the absolute. ‘This 
is patent to all who carefully examine 
the fundamentals of these religions, 
and likewise consider the daily living 
of their adherents. However, it will 
be admitted that wherever Buddhism, 
Mohammedanism or Confucianism is 
[ 75 J 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


the accepted religion, there Buddha, 
Mohammed or Confucius is, in influ- 
ence, operating in some degree upon 
the minds and hearts and in the lives 
of the people. (I have mentioned 
Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Con- 
fucianism to emphasize the proposi- 
tion of the next paragraph, because 
they are the major religions in battle 
with the Christian religion.) 

If it be said that the church of 
history, Christian institutions and 
Christians generally have all down 
through the centuries failed to cor- 
rectly interpret and faithfully apply 
the teachings of Jesus, I can make no 
reply. Until this thesis is finished, I 
can neither discuss nor quote anything 
in the New Testament. But I ean, 
and shall, insist that, to the extent in 
which Jesus’ teachings have been cor- 
rectly interpreted and faithfully ap- 
pled, He has, in influence, operated 
among men. Moreover, I shall contend 
that, nothwithstanding much inaccu- 
racy of interpretation and faithlessness 

[ 76 | 


REFORM 


in application of the teachings of 
Jesus, He has led, and is leading, 
world progress. I am not here re- 
ferring to discoveries and inventions 
and such like, though I think the 
white light of careful research would 
reveal Jesus as the dynamic of modern 
material progress. In this chapter I 
am calling attention to the gradual as- 
cent of the world out of its lowlands of 
vice and wretchedness into its Alpines 
of rich thinking and noble living. 

Just here an occasional reader may 
ask: ‘‘Why dignify the ascension of the 
world with extended reference, when 
every one knows that it is bad and 
getting worse, and while we are still 
weeping over the most terrible war 
known to history?’’ I will admit that 
the world is bad, but I can not admit 
that it is getting worse. It is said that 
men swear or use bywords because 
their vocabulary is limited. I do not 
know about this. but I do not think 
I err when I say that the man or 
woman who insists that the world is 


Ta 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


headed for destruction lacks knowl- 
edge of history. How any one can com- 
pare the past with the present and say 
the world used to be better than it is 
now is beyond my comprehension. (I 
shall make reference to war and wick- 
edness in general in a later chapter, 
when my permit to open the bible is 
again in hand.) 

The subject now before us clothes 
itself with the word ‘‘reform.’’ Spe- 
cific reforms, some of them far-reach- 
ing, are now in progress. However, 
they are not sufficiently advanced to be 
called facts, and hence must be ignored 
by this discussion. My proposition, to 
be consistent, can cite only facts that 
are full-orbed or that have passed be- 
yond the experimental stage to the 
point which assures permanency and 
maturity. 

I once heard a devout minister say 
in a sermon: ‘‘If you are easily dis- 
couraged, pray.’’ JI would never dis- 
courage prayer. I do not think we 
pray enough. However, I would say 

[ 78 ] 


REFORM 


to the easily discouraged—especially 
with regard to general reform: Read 
history. Men may reform in a day, 
and so may families or small com- 
munities, but they rarely so do. A re- 
form of proportions is always slow. 
There are multiplied complications and 
reactions in connection with every 
reform movement, and the ‘‘consumma- 
tion devoutly wished’’ is usually long 
deferred. The ill-informed and short- 
sighted become impatient, discouraged 
and pessimistic. The far-sighted—and 
they are necessarily informed—look 
back through the centuries then into 
the distant future, and, reasoning out 
of the philosophy of history, they are 
content to toil and wait. To all such 
of the past the present is grateful, and 
to all such of the present the future 
will be grateful. Vision is ever the 
world’s supreme need. 

I have selected only a few past re- 
forms for brief mention, but they may 
be considered major. It is my purpose 
to show that Jesus of Nazareth, in His 

6 [ 79 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


influence upon the world, has been the 
urge of general reform. 

There is still modified human sla- 
very of one sort or another; but in 
contrast with the slavery of the past it 
is light, and negligible. We of the 
United States usually think of the an- 
tebellum days as the period of agitation 
against slavery, and of Harriet Beecher 
Stowe as perhaps the leading agitator. 
But history reveals that Lincoln’s 
emancipation proclamation drew the 
last groan from an institution that had 
been dying for centuries. If it should 
be urged that some of the compre- 
hensive sayings of great teachers in 
ancient times rebuked slavery, and 
that those teachers deserve the credit 
for its abolition, it would be in order 
to request proof as to when and where 
the credit due them has been evidenced 
by history. Men who think and talk in 
the interrogative—and they are many 
—would probably ask: ‘‘Might it not 
have been that, had Jesus never lived, 
slavery, through some righteous influ- 

[ 80 ] 


REFORM 
ence, would have disappeared?’’ We 
have only history to consult, and his- 
tory never tells us what might have 
been. Again, if some one should try 
to rule Jesus out by asserting that the 
antislavery movement just happened 
to be contemporaneous with Christi- 
anity, his statement would be rebuked 
by the history of multiplied centuries. 
History informs us that the agitation 
which gradually modified, and ulti- 
mately abolished, slavery was begun by 
Christians, and that it rolled down 
through the centuries almost to our day 
on the wheels of Christian sentiment. 
Early in the Christian era, and as a 
resultant of Christian protest, the ex- 
treme hardships of slavery began yield- 
ing to modification. As time went on, 
the modifications became more numer- 
ous and more alleviative. Naturally, 
the freedom of slaves in a small way, 
here and there and on one ground 
or another, became common.  Ulti- 
mately, the abolition of slavery as an 
institution began to be thought of and 
[81 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


discussed and urged, and gradually 
that great Christian dream became a 
reality. Jesus, in influence, started, 
led and won the battle with human 
slavery. This fact is far removed 
from question marks. 

When the Christian religion made 
its advent, the public torture of human 
beings—particularly of slaves and pris- 
oners—was a custom of long standing. 
People assembled by the thousands to 
watch writhing human bodies and listen 
to human shrieks, because human blood 
and human pain afforded them pleas- 
ure. Also, torture was resorted to for 
the purpose of forcing confessions of 
guilt—this sort of torture remained 
long after that for pleasure had been 
discontinued. The opposition to tor- 
ture was started and carried on by 
followers of Jesus. Constantine was 
a human fiend who, prior to his con- 
version to Christianity, subjected 
prisoners to torture. Yet it was 
Constantine who, in 325, issued the 
decree: 

[ 82 ] 


REFORM 


‘‘Bloody spectacles, in our present state of 
civil tranquility and domestic peace, do not 
please us, wherefore we order that all gladiators 
be prohibited from carrying on their profes- 
sion.”’ 


And from Constantine’s day on, the 
Christian protest against human tor- 
ture was continued. I am aware of 
the fact that the church, whose clergy 
Constantine had in his zeal elevated to 
the rank of state, became the arch in- 
stitution of cruelty. But the fact that 
the management of the church turned 
out of the path of mercy into the jun- 
gles of fiendish passion does not ob- 
secure another—the fact that all through 
those blighted centuries the real fol- 
lowers of Jesus stood firmly by their 
faith, which had in it the principle of 
protection for the unfortunate. This 
principle survived the midnight of 
modern history, reasserted itself and 
continued its aggressive opposition to 
the torture implements—and always in 
the name of Jesus. Study the history 
of torture, as, in all the countries 

[ 83 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


wherein it existed, it gradually became 
less and less severe and finally ceased, 
and one great fact will keep to the fore 
—the fact that torture for pleasure, as 
punishment for crime or to force con- 
fessions was legislated out of existence 
by the Christian urge. During the 
entire long war with that awful, deep- 
seated human depravity, Jesus of Naz- 
areth was the Commander-in-chief. 
There is still much adverse criti- 
cism of the stage, and it must be ad- 
mitted that the stage, taken as a whole, 
does not promote the best morals. 
However, the present-day stage is as 
a snowbank sprinkled with soot when 
compared with the mud and slime of 
the old-time stage. If anything now 
tolerated by a generous public has 
been transformed, it is the stage. Now- 
adays, the show ealled ‘‘indecent’’ is 
in some secluded hall under lock and 
key, and witnessed by only a selected 
company of ‘‘trusted’’ men. The old- 
time salacious show was staged in the 
prominent playhouses and patronized 


84 | 


REFORM 
by the general public. And the most 
licentious show of the season was the 
most popular. <A description in En- 
glish of the stage of two thousand years 
ago would not be permitted circulation 
to-day. Does some one rise to remark 
that the ancient teachers urged high 
thinking, and that their teaching may 
have centered upon the stage to cleanse 
it of its filth? Inasmuch as I can not 
draw upon the Bible in this discussion, 
I shall protest against the reader draw- 
ing upon his imagination. The stage at 
its worst was contemporaneous with 
the beginnings of the Christian relig- 
ion. The opposition to a licentious 
stage was started, and it has ever been 
carried on, by Christians. All legisla- 
tion looking toward the purification of 
the stage has been instigated by the 
influence of Christianity—this is a 
matter of plain, indisputable history. 
And through Christian persistence leg- 
islation regarding the stage is still in 
progress. In other words, Jesus has 
been sweeping the stage for nineteen 
85 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


centuries, and He is still sweeping the 
dust from its carpets. 

Prior to the time when the univer- 
sal effect of the Christian religion 
began to be felt, defective and unwel- 
come children were ‘‘exposed.’’ Also, 
woman was .a chattel—originally to 
do menial service, and later to be 
an ornament. The cruelty perpetrated 
upon innocent children gradually 
passed, and woman now enjoys eman- 
cipation. It could not be even inti- 
mated that the teaching of ancient 
moralists wrought these changes—espe- 
cially the transfer of woman to her 
logical place by man’s side. The 
unfortunate child is now permitted to 
live, and woman is as free as man. 
These are facts which, in the light of 
history, have resulted from the influ- 
ence of Jesus upon our civilization. 

Marriage is an institution yet ham- 
pered by a conventionalism that is out 
of harmony with the highest ideals, 
and by a system of legislation that is 
not in line with general progress. But 


[ 86 ] 


REFORM 

marriage is now more respected and 
better guarded by far than it was two 
thousand years ago. This is so because 
early in the Christian era the true fol- 
lowers of Jesus took a decided stand for 
the ideal home, and because their suc- 
cessors down through the centuries 
have maintained that stand. 

The duel, for so long a blight upon 
civilization, is no more. Why? There 
is but one answer: The followers of 
Jesus opposed it and ultimately abol- 
ished it. Legislation against that evil 
was slow, but it was sure and final— 
and it was engineered, from beginning 
to end, by Christian sentiment. It 
must be said to the credit of the Roman 
Catholic Church that she always op- 
posed dueling. Her councils and popes 
back in the centuries were outspoken 
against it. And Protestantism, from 
its beginning, resisted the duel. The 
rise and reign and fall of the duel, like 
the other subjects I am briefly touch- 
ing upon, would make an interesting 
book. But lengthy reference to it is 

[ 87 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


not here necessary. That Christian 
sentiment in legislation against dueling 
may be clearly seen, I shall submit 
only a bit of history in detail. In 1841, 
a petition for legislation against duel- 
ing in England, presented to the House 
of Lords, began thus: 

“Tf society is to be preserved, it must be 
Christianized. Your lordships have acknowl- 


edged this great truth by your exertions to pre- 
serve the Christian principles in education.’’ 


Shortly after the tragic death of 
Alexander Hamilton, which shocked 
the American public and quickened 
its conscience, General Pinckney ap- 
pealed to the South Carolina Assembly 
to pass a law abolishing the duel, and 
in his memorial he stressed the prin- 
ciples of the Christian religion. In 
1838, when the bill to prohibit dueling 
in the District of Columbia was before 
Congress, Henry Clay concluded his 
powerful address as follows: 

‘When public opinion is renovated and 
chastened by religion, reason and humanity, the 
practice of dueling will be at once discontinued.’’ 


[ 88 ] 


REFORM 


Mr. Clay undoubtedly referred to 
the Christian religion—no other relig- 
ion had place in his life. His appeal 
was to the influence ot Jesus in the 
world, which ultimately silenced the 
duelist’s gun. 

No comprehensive discussion in this 
day would be complete with ‘‘democ- 
racy’’ left out. The word is not new, 
nor have the American people ever 
been so dull as to misunderstand its 
meaning. Nevertheless, when, during 
the war, President Wilson swung it up 
into the sky of the greater public think- 
ing, it appeared as a star we had not 
hitherto fully observed. It at once 
became the universal word, without 
which magazine articles, newspaper 
editorials and public addresses would 
have been minus luster. Nor has this 
word yet lost its attraction. Speakers 
and writers never weary of it. The re- 
cent books and pamphlets and articles 
on one phase or another of democ- 
racy are legion. However, I wonder if 
the average writer, and especially the 

[ 89 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


skeptical writer, has paused to ask who 
started, and has guided, democracy 
down through the centuries—to liber- 
alize governments and make them more 
tolerable and efficient, and to even play 
an international role. ‘‘Democracy’’ is 
but another word for reform, but it is 
a greater word. The term ‘‘reform,”’ 
in general usage, attaches principally 
to specific things. The term ‘‘democ- 
racy’’ has larger embrace—the princi- 
ple it represents is underneath all re- 
form, and it will ultimately accomplish 
all reform. And from the time it 
passed out of the abstract into the con- 
erete, democracy has matured and 
spread and accomplished universal re- 
sults directly under the influence of the 
Christian religion. I do not think any 
unbiased student of the history of de- 
mocracy could possibly disagree with 
William Pierson Merrill, who, in his 
book, ‘‘Christian Internationalism,”’ 
Says: 

‘‘The early Christian churches were the first 
truly democratic communities in the world.’’ 


[ 90 ] 


REFORM 


Following up the history of de- 
mocracy from its beginning to the 
present day, it could be shown that all 
the governments of earth have been, in 
one way or another, influenced more or 
less by principles of the Christian 
religion. This being true, it 1s not 
far-fetched to conclude that Jesus to- 
day has place of some sort in every 
sphere of world advancement. 


[91 ] 


CHRISTMAS 

| Oe es the origin of Christ- 

mas, there is divergence of opinion. 
Moreover, the date of Jesus’ birth has 
been debated for centuries. Again, 
there is widespread criticism of the 
general observance of Christmas, the 
custom of exchanging gifts, ete. 

I shall not argue about either the 
origin of Christmas or the date of 
Jesus’ birth, nor shall I attempt a de- 
fense of the manner in which the hol- 
iday season is observed. These are 
matters of no concern in the present 
discussion. 

After all has been said about the 
vague origin of Christmas, its Roman 
Catholic authorization and its adop- 
tion by Protestantism, the doubt re- 
Sspecting its exactness as to date, the 
spirit of revelry with which it is dese- 
erated and the hardships its demand 

[ 92] 


% 


CHRISTMAS 


for the exchange of presents imposes 
upon the poor, the indisputable fact 
remains that Christmas 7s. Each year 
Jesus stretches forth His imperial 
hand and demands attention, and with 
the voice of authority He commands 
the civilized world to celebrate His 
birth. And the world hears and obeys. 

We celebrate the natal days of 
Washington, Lincoln and other Ameri- 
can statesmen, and the citizens of other 
countries set apart days that recall the 
advent of the most outstanding men in 
their national history. ‘The celebration 
of Jesus’ birth is in nowise national—it 
is universal. 

Perhaps some of my readers have 
nad the experience on a national holi- 
day of approaching a bank door and 
being brought up with a sudden jolt by 
the sign ‘‘Closed.’’ I will confess that 
such experience has been mine. And 
where is the man who does not occa- 
sionally fail to think of his own birthday 
until the ‘‘big dinner’’ awaiting him at 
home in the evening reminds him of it! 

[93 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


No one forgets the birthday of Jesus. 
In the average home, it is the main 
subject of conversation for days before 
its approach—even the tiny ones of the 
household prattle about it. 

In our own country, and in every 
other, preparation for a national cele- 
bration is exceedingly meager com- 
pared with the preparation for the 
celebration of Jesus’ birth. Immedi- 
ately after the holidays, world-wide 
preparation for the next Christmas sea- 
son begins. Manufacturers and mer- 
chants must think and plan and work 
far ahead of time to be ready for the 
‘“‘Christmas rush.’? The money the 
Christmas trade involves every year 
runs into astounding figures. 

A few weeks prior to Christmas the 
department stores, the postal depart- 
ment and the transportation companies 
take on extra help to avoid congestion. 
But it appears that congestion 1s never 
successfully avoided. Shopping or 
sending packages just before Christ- 
mas is a task dreaded by all men, and 

[ 94 ] 


CHRISTMAS 


ce 


by most women. Every year people 
say, ‘‘It gets worse and worse.’’ An 
officer of a transportation company 
said: ‘‘T'ry as hard as we may, we are 
never prepared for Christmas.’’ And 
{ presume the postal authorities and 
department-store managers could truth- 
fully say the same. ‘‘Do Your Christ- 
mas Shopping Early.’’ This is the 
warning swung before the public about 
the first of December, and those who 
heed it not are always ‘‘caught in the 
jam.”’ 

A week before Christmas the post- 
man’s slackened pace is neighborhood 
gossip. The people tell one another 
that each day he is later than on the 
day before. We await his coming, and 
become restless. And when, at last, he 
arrives, we observe that, no matter 
what the weather, he is perspiring 
beneath his burdens. 

When Christmas dawns, the wheels 
of industry are still—business every- 
where has temporarily ceased, and 
there is a universal hush. Even the 

7 [95] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Jew has closed his store, and the 
atheist’s office door is locked. The 
greetings are exchanged, the presents 
are distributed, and the oncoming 
great dinner is much in evidence. 
Many who participate in the festal 
spirit may not know exactly what it 
is all about, and others may not give it 
serious thought. Nevertheless, it is a 
great time and all enter rapturously 
into the joys of the day. 

The wreath or sprig of green is 
everywhere—in the mansion of afflu- 
ence and in the home of poverty, in the 
woodman’s hut far away from the cen- 
ters of life and aboard the ship tossed 
by rolling seas. Prior to prohibition, 
the gilded saloon was wreathed in holly 
during the Christmas season. Even 
into the city brothel the spirit of 
Christmas penetrates. Doubtless, in 
many a house ealled ‘‘the abode of 
depravity’? a sorrowful outcast on 
Christmas morning looks, with tear- 
filled eyes, at a cheap wreath on a 
window or a sprig of holly in a vase, 


[96 ] 


CHRISTMAS 


when memory wings its way back to 
home and childhood and mother’s 
knee, where a golden-haired girl—as 
beautiful as an angel, and as pure as 
the swirling flakes of snow without— 
knelt and lisped: 


‘Now I lay me down to sleep; 
I pray the Lord my soul to keep; 
If I should die before I wake, 
I pray the Lord my soul to take.’’ 


Christmas as it is—a world fact 
which we may criticize, but can neither 
discontinue nor change—proclaims the 
authority of Jesus on earth. 


[97 ] 


MODERN LITERATURE 


lie phrase, ‘‘modern literature,’’ in 

current speech does not necessarily 
include all types of even recent Ori- 
ental writing. I here refer to the lt- 
erature usually in mind when the 
phrase is employed—the Western world 
literature of modern centuries. 

Modern literature is a subject too 
vast to figure in detailed manner, as 
a whole or in small part, in a discussion 
such as this. Nor is even a classifica- 
tion of modern literature necessary. 
Moreover, I doubt if that man lives 
whose familiarity with modern litera- 
ture has sufficient sweep to compre- 
hend the subject as a whole, and to 
put it forth in minutely classified and 
detailed discussion. Men may pose, 
or be spoken of, as general literary 
critics; but, owing to human lumita- 
tions, there are none such. 

[98 J 


MODERN LITERATURE 


However, there have been, and are, 
competent literary critics—people who 
have specialized in one sort of ltera- 
ture or another. Hence, we must look 
to men and women of special reading 
for accurate studies in literature. 

Like the average preacher, journal- 
ist or teacher, J have done some general 
reading. But I am not a literary critic 
in any sense. Nevertheless, like every 
one else acquainted with books, I know 
how to find what is necessary in the 
discussion of any subject my judgment 
tells me I should attempt to handle. 
In my quest of information on the 
subject now entering this discussion, I 
have devoted considerable attention to 
critical treatments of various branches 
of literature—just glancing through 
many books and reading a number 
carefully. And I have found that 
Jesus is in modern literature in a way 
more pronounced than I had hitherto 
thought. It appears that He is more 
generally conspicuous in literature 
than in music or pictured art, 

[99 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


It is not necessary to more than 
mention the fact that the Church Fa- 
thers and all the Christian writers from 
their day to ours built their theories 
and exhortations and stories around 
the name of Jesus. Moreover, the pres- 
ent annual output of such books is 
enormous. An enumeration of the 
books—past and  present—exalting 
Jesus and His religion would involve 
a task so stupendous that I doubt the 
possibility of its performance by any 
man. In one small volume, ‘‘Modern 
Religious Verse and Prose,’’ by Fred 
Merrifield, 248 authors are quoted. 
Were all the volumes, old and new, of 
the class to which I am referring 
shelved in a single library, the collec- 
tion would be so vast that the man of 
ordinary reading would, upon behold- 
ing it, doubtless exclaim: ‘‘I had no 
idea that there were so many books in 
the world!’’ 

Put alongside this colossal library 
another. Shelve in it all the books, 
old and recent, that, in one way or an- 

[ 100 ] 


MODERN LITERATURE 


other, oppose Jesus or His religion. 
Add all the published debates concern- 
ing Jesus and the numerous subjects 
His religion has fixed in the human 
mind. And add also the publications 
that attempt to explain Jesus and the 
Christian religion on rational bases. 
This collection likewise would be so 
enormous that it would astonish even 
the aged book-lover. 

A third building must be erected in 
our imagination to accommodate all 
general encyclopedias of the past and 
present, and all reference-books of 
practically every character. Not even 
a general dictionary can be left out of 
this collection. As every one knows, 
all such books contain references to 
Jesus or to His direct influence or to 
things that would not have been just 
as they were or are had He not lived. 
Not even the history of mathematics or 
astronomy could be traced without in 
some way touching upon conditions that 
resulted from the world’s contact with 
the Christian religion. It may have been 

[101 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


that many conditions obtained because 
of misunderstandings or misapplica- 
tions of Christian principles. This does 
not destroy the argument. I am 
stressing the fact that, whether mis- 
understood or correctly valued, Jesus 
has so touched the life and activities of 
the Christian era that He can not be 
entirely ignored by any historian—no 
matter what his subject. 

A fourth building is necessary, nor 
ean its dimensions be narrow. For 
we have yet to shelve all the writings 
on patriotic themes, all the essays on 
a thousand and one subjects, all the fic- 
tion and all the poetry in which Jesus 
either directly or indirectly figures. 

_ Now, what have we left? Not much. 
This library is composed of a little 
poetry, a little essay and a little fiction, 
plus some books of rule along mechan- 
ical and educational lines. To be sure, 
this would be a huge library to observe. 
But, compared with the other four, it is 
as a toy-house. And it is probable that 
not many, if any, of the books in this 

[ 102 ] 


MODERN LITERATURE 
library are entirely without the touch 
of Christian influence. I shall ven- 
ture the assertion that a keen eye would 
not fail to find Jesus in some sort of 
influence throughout the collection. 
And it is certain that these books 
would recognize Jesus in copyright and 
publication. 

A protesting spirit which afflicts our 
age cries out: ‘‘Hold on there! What 
about Shakespeare?’’?’ The same skep- 
tical spirit sometimes insists that 
there was no Shakespeare, or that if 
a man of that name lived in the latter 
part of the sixteenth and the early part 
of the seventeenth centuries he did not 
write Shakespeare. I am old-fashioned 
enough to believe that there was a 
Shakespeare and that he wrote Shake- 
speare. However, this is not the place 
to debate that question. Whether 
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or 
Bacon wrote Shakespeare or some 
other man or set of men wrote Shake- 
peare, we have a colossal work enti- 
tled, ‘‘Shakespeare.’? I am ealling 

[ 103 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


special attention to the English master- 
piece because it affords opportunity 
to answer the protesting spirit which, 
with victorious bearing, gleefully an- 
nounces that this author and _ that 
omits personal reference to Jesus of 
Nazareth. 

A number of theories regarding the 
apparent omission of references to 
Jesus in Shakespeare are current. The 
position taken by some critics that the 
early English Puritanism would have 
regarded bold, personal .reference to 
Jesus in playhouse literature as a prof- 
anation is plausible. However, this 
is one of the things we can only guess 
at. Another question is much more 
important: Is Jesus left out of Shake- 
speare ? 

Tacitus did not mention the name of 
Josephus in his writings. Yet the erit- 
ics of Tacitus admit that the old Roman 
writer drew upon Josephus quite 
heavily. It is not necessary to use 
the word ‘‘sun’’? when discussing or 
referring to light or things which 

[104] 


MODERN LITERATURE 


would never have been had the sun 
not existed. Many books and _ pas- 
sages in books and articles in maga- 
zines that do not mention Jesus’ name 
refer to Him indirectly, and to things 
and conditions that would not have 
been had He not lived. There are 
some things in Shakespeare that one 
ean not help deploring. Yet it is a 
monumental work, out of which great 
good goes into the life of the world. 
And much of the good in Shakespeare 
is undoubtedly the result of Christian 
influence upon its author’s day. 
When a boy, my little study of 
Shakespeare revealed to me the fact 
that the work is shot through with 
Christian principles. Moreover, I 
found passages in Shakespeare that 
made me think of Jesus, and Jesus only. 
Nor have I as a man found occasion to 
see it otherwise when reading Shake- 
speare. And my consultation of Shake- 
speare’s critics has augmented my con- 
viction that Shakespeare frequently 
wrote out of Christian sentiment, 
[105 | 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Churton Collins, in ‘‘Studies in 
Shakespeare,’’ avers that Montaigne 
and Shakespeare reverenced Christi- 
anity. And John H. Morrison, in ‘‘The 
Great Poets as Religious Teachers,’’ 
Says: 

‘*T doubt whether there is a single essential 
doctrine or precept of the Gospels which is not 
directly or indirectly recognized and enforced 
by Shakespeare.’’ 

Thus quotations from the com- 
ments of Shakespearean critics might 
be multiplied indefinitely. 

Shelley was an avowed atheist. But 
it is my opinion that he just thought 
himself an atheist. He could not ac- 
cept the God represented by the church 
of his day—that was all. He likewise 
doubtless regarded Jesus as only a 
man. Nevertheless, Jesus figured in 
his writings. And in some of his 
private correspondence he expressed 
personal admiration for Jesus. Also 
William Blake, the ‘‘queer _ poet,”’ 
whom no one seemed to understand, 
denounced the creedal Christ, but ex- 

[ 106 | 


MODERN LITERATURE 


alted the man Jesus. If the entire 
circle of modern writers who have 
opposed organized religion should be 
made in quest of an author who has 
altogether ignored Jesus and man- 
aged to steer entirely clear of His 
influence in our ever-advancing civil- 
zation, I am certain that he could not 
be found. 

Richard Roberts, in ‘‘That One 
Face,’’ says: 

‘‘Tf we could send a man, who has no pre- 
vious knowledge, to examine the literature of 
the last twenty-five centuries, his strongest im- 
pression would be that, at a certain point, a 
personality altogether unique in wealth and 
power impinged on the life of man, gradually 


changing the tone and stress of literature and 
exerting a permanent influence upon it.’’ 


And he adds: 


‘‘The absolute pre-eminence of Jesus Christ 
in the essential art and literature of nineteen 
centuries is beyond serious question.’’ 


If all the books in which Jesus is 
mentioned or figures, and all the books 


that lean upon Him in one way or an- 
[ 107 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


other, and all the books that contain 
things resultant upon His influence in 
civilization, were destroyed, the great li- 
braries of the world would be wrecked. 


[ 108 ] 


ART 


HE field of fine arts by no means 

narrows itself down to one subject. 
Nor is there a reason why any of the 
arts should be denied a place in this 
discussion—the history and analysis of 
every art in modern hands would show 
the finger-prints of Jesus. For ex- 
ample, when recently looking through 
a book entitled, ‘‘Famous Sculpture,’’ 
I was surprised at the space devoted to 
Christian symbolism in the sculpture 
of the Christian era. Another book—a 
history of sculpture—makes extensive 
reference to the impress of the Chris- 
tian religion on the Hellenistic and 
other styles of sculpture that have, in 
the main, been retained. I find, also, 
that a study of architecture would 
reveal additions and subtractions and 
settings traceable to none other than 
Christian sources. And thus the entire 

[109 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


round of art might be made. Music 
will be treated as a special subject in 
the next chapter. When we hear or see 
the word ‘‘art,’’ we usually think first 
of pictures. Hence, the single word, 
‘fart,’? instead of an _ explanatory 
phrase, introduces this chapter. 

Eusebius could not be a witness in 
the discussion of the historicity of 
Jesus, for the reason that testimony 
labeled ‘‘traditional’’ was not permit- 
ted. However, he may now be ealled 
to testify that he saw paintings of the 
Christ and Peter and Paul. This ref- 
erence to Eusebius is to show that the 
artistic temperament yielded itself to 
the magnetism of Jesus early in our 
era. 

The discussion of the subject now in 
hand must necessarily be introduced by 
reference to the old-time burial-vaults 
about Rome. The Catacombs could not 
be used as direct testimony to prove 
that Jesus lived. But the present dis- 
cussion can not ignore the Catacombs. 
It is in a catacomb that the earliest 

[110 ] 


ART 


extant painting of the Christ is found 
—now so faded and marred that it is 
searcely discernible. 

The reader will clearly understand 
that in the Catacombs ‘‘the Christ of 
dogma,’’ as the New Theology insists, 
looms large. But this does not invali- 
date our appeal to the Catacombs. The 
historicity of Jesus is admitted by the 
advocates of the New Theology. Nor 
ean they do other than admit that the 
artists who wrought in the Catacombs 
must have believed that Jesus lived. It 
could not have been otherwise than 
that in the minds of those artists Jesus 
and the Christ were one and the same 
person. The exaltation of the Christ 
in the Catacombs was the exaltation of 
Jesus. Those artists could have had 
no other person in mind. 

It must be admitted that in consid- 
erable of the display of the Cata- 
combs can be found characteristics of 
pagan art. A specific observation by 
art critics is the similarity between 
representations of Hermes Kriophoros 

8 [111] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


bearing a ram and the representations 
in the Catacombs of the Good Shep- 
herd. Instead of diminishing the force 
of the present argument, this fact en- 
haneces it. The main purpose of this 
book is to stress the universally obser- 
vable fact that Jesus of Nazareth is 
gradually taking possession of the 
world—eliminating bad and unimpor- 
tant things and conditions and retain- 
ing and appropriating all that is good 
and worth while. There was grace in 
pagan art, and why should it not have 
been made to serve in the creation of 
Christian conceptions? (In a subse- 
quent chapter, when the argument shall 
have been completed and the Bible can 
be reopened, my thought respecting 
Jesus’ method of procedure will find ex- 
pression. But during the argument a 
distinct reference to it, or anything 
resembling New Testament preaching, 
would be a violation of my contract 
with the reader). 

The art of the Catacombs expanded 
as time went on, and its expansion 

Mahe 


ART 


clearly reveals tragic periods through 
which the Christian religion passed. 
In a eatacomb, which, according to 
De Rossi, was started either in the 
days of the apostles or of their imme- 
diate successors, a fresco of Christ’s 
face appears. There is, likewise, a 
fresco of Christ as Orpheus taming the 
wild beasts—the wild beasts, in the 
light of art criticism, represent the un- 
ruly human passions. Also, in an early 
erypt is a representation of Christ’s 
baptism. These and other pictures 
clearly indicate that in the beginning 
the artists of the Catacombs had in 
mind only the One they worshiped. 
Later the art of the Catacombs sug- 
gests the persecutions and vicissitudes 
of the Christian faith—an apparent 
effort to record history. Neither does 
this detract from the proposition that 
in the art of the Catacombs the Christ 
is predominant. No matter what the 
picture, the Christ, in some capacity, is 
the center—over all, in all and con- 
trolling all. 
Puish 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Were I competent to discuss art 
from a eritic’s viewpoint, and should I 
devote many chapters to what is known 
as Christian art—in all the Catacombs 
and museums that contain it, in all 
the periods that have produced it and 
in all the countries where it is found— 
nothing would be gained for the pur- 
pose of this thesis. The sole aim of 
this chapter is that of emphasizing the 
fact that Jesus has been, and is, the 
one great subject of art on canvas. 
I shall, therefore, hastily mention a few 
other matters which I think logically 
find place in the proposition. 

Much ado has been made of the fact 
—and it is a significant fact—that the 
artists have differed so widely in their 
conceptions of the Christ. For exam- 
ple, a German artist gives the Christ 
a German face, clothes Him in velvet 
and adorns Him with jewels, whereas 
an Italian artist gives Him a dreamy 
face, clothes Him cheaply and leaves 
off the sparkle. It has been said that 
to the German artist the Christ is a 

[ 114 ] 


ART 
German and that to the English artist 
Heis an Englishman. Why not? There 
is nothing in this to occasion wonder. 
Human nature has ever to be reck- 
oned with. And human nature has in 
it an element which insists upon tribal, 
racial or national superiority of some 
sort. The characteristics of a people 
are handed down from generation to 
generation, and they are manifest in 
individual effort and accomplishment. 
Why, therefore, should not the German 
artist’s Christ be stern of countenance 
and aggressive in bearing? And why 
should not the French artist’s Christ 
be graceful in attitude and sociable 
in appearance? Instead of detracting 
from the contention that Jesus is the 
center of art, all this adds mightily 
to it. Varied as are the conceptions, 
overshadowed by the nationality of ar- 
tists, the pictures are designed to rep- 
resent the Nazarene. It is to Him 
that modern art has ever turned for its 
major subject. In this my argument 
is entrenched. 
P15) 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


The Renaissance gave civilization a 
long, tremendous push forward. And 
it wrought marked changes in art, as 
in everything else. It liberated art in 
many ways, and, of course, liberalized 
it. That the Renaissance gave individ- 
uality, and license, sway in art can 
not be questioned. But there was one 
thing the Renaissance did not do—it 
did not change the artist’s favorite sub- 
ject. The man who was the Christ in 
people’s minds before the dawn of the 
Renaissance remained the Christ to the 
people of that expanding day, and the 
artists vied with one another in por- 
traying Him on canvas. 

Nor has our modern day trans- 
ferred the emphasis to another subject. 
The masters of modern times have 
immortalized themselves by placing 
their conceptions of Jesus before the 
world. Yet it appears that, in the eyes 
of artists, the task of producing the 
most worthy conception of Jesus pos- 
sible has not been completed. Pictures 
of Jesus are yet in the making—the 

[ 116 ] 


ART 


world around. Sir Wyke Bayliss ran 
no risk when, in ‘‘Rex Regum,’’ he 
prophesied that ‘‘the face of Christ 
shall never fade from our eyes as have 
the faces of the old gods.’’ 

Moreover, modern art has eclipsed 
the ancient particularly in its success- 
ful presentation of Jesus without at- 
tempting to endow Him with person- 
ality. Millet’s ‘‘Angelus’’ is an ex- 
ample. Were Jesus not somehow vis- 
ible in that painting, which has been 
exhibited throughout various countries, 
it would never have attracted attention. 
The peasants are the personalities. 
Yet who could look upon that picture 
and not visualize Jesus? The eyes of 
flesh see the painted objects; the eyes 
of the mind, whether it be the mind of 
Christian, Jew, atheist, infidel or agnos- 
tic, see Jesus—this is the miracle of 
the ‘‘ Angelus.’’ 

P. T. Forsyth, a keen art critic, in- 
timates that religion is visible in secu- 
lar art. The modern secular picture 
that attracts attention emits as part of 

Baletyed 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


its atmosphere an indefinable some- 
thing which does not suggest either 
a pagan deity or the pantheism of the 
‘fadvanced thinker,’’ but a spiritual in- 
fluence which emanates from the age- 
long soul-conception of Jesus. The 
man who with brush and paint succeeds 
in winning and holding the eyes of the 
world can not leave Jesus entirely 
out of his production. Whether or not 
he be a Christian, something that, in 
his studies, has emanated from Jesus 
is in his artist’s soul, and it gets 
into his picture. The casual observer 
may not be able to designate anything 
in a renowned picture that suggests 
Jesus, but the expert art critic will 
point out in it a touch that would not 
have been there had Jesus not lived. 
Perhaps there is a thought worth get- 
ting in Forsyth’s observation: ‘‘The 
romantic spirit is the specially Chris- 
tian element in art.” 

Joseph Lewis French, in ‘‘Christ 
in Art,’’ says: ‘‘The subject of the 
Christ is undoubtedly the greatest that 

[ 118 ] 


ART 


has ever entered into the domain of 
art.’’ 

The masters have been impelled, by 
silent public demand or something 
within their own souls, or both, to hang 
up their pictures of the Christ—this, 
to say nothing of the innumerable 
paintings that leave out the personal 
Jesus, but that in some manner reflect 
His influence upon communities, occa- 
slons and individuals. 

What class of pictures has the 
greatest drawing power? And what 
type of picture fascinates people most? 
These questions can be the better an- 
swered by another: Where do men who 
visit the centers of art stand and wor- 
ship ? 

“The Last Judgment,’’ by Michael 
Angelo; ‘‘The Transfiguration’? and 
‘‘Heed My Sheep,’’ by Raphael; ‘‘The 
Descent from the Cross,’’ by Volterra; 
‘‘Christ and Disciples,’’ by Fra Angel- 
ico; ‘‘The Last Supper,’’ by Andrea 
del Sarto; the ‘‘Head of Christ’’ and 
“The Last Supper,’’ by Leonardo da 

[ 119 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Vinci; ‘‘Touch Me Not,’’ by Correg-. 
gio; ‘‘The Descent from the Cross,”’ 
by Rubens; ‘‘Christ in the Peasant’s 
Hut,’’ by Von Uhde—these are the sort 
of pictures people travel long distances 
to observe, and before which they bow 
their heads in profound reverence. 

Remove Jesus—His personality and 
influence—from the picture galleries, 
and their attractions will be swept 
away. 


[ 120 ] 


MUSIC 


ERE elassification our rule of 

procedure, the contents of this 
chapter would have been incorporated 
in the preceding chapter, or this would 
be one of at least two chapters under 
the title ‘‘Art.’’ 

I regard music as the finest of fine 
arts. I do not minimize the value of 
painting, sculpture, architecture or 
anything else that might be called an 
art. A production of mastership that 
accomplishes good, whatever its char- 
acter, is a contribution to human prog- 
ress which must be admired. How- 
ever, in my estimation, music tran- 
scends the other arts in at least one 
particular. It makes its approach 
through the ear, and is transient. Yet 
it lingers as an influence, and accom- 
plishes permanent results. One looks 
at a picture or statue or cathedral, and 

[ 121 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


it is photographed on his mind. He 
can neither see music when under its 
spell nor visualize it after it has taken 
flight. Nevertheless, it fills his soul 
with an indefinable joy in the present 
and leaves something majestic in his 
heart for the future. 

I shall not contend that Jesus of 
Nazareth was a musician, or that mu- 
sic especially appealed to Him. I 
might think, and affirm, that He was 
without defect or dormancy in sensibil- 
ity, as well as in character and vision. 
But this would be stepping out of the 
field of fact into that of conjecture, and 
conjecture can have no place in my 
thesis. I shall stress the fact, how- 
ever, that Jesus is predominant in the 
realm of music. 

The air of ‘‘America’’ can not be 
definitely traced beyond its adoption by 
the British national hymn. But there 
are strong indications that its source 
was Christian. If Handel composed 
it, and some so think, it was, without 
doubt, sent forth as a conveyer of 

[ 122 ] 


MUSIC 





Christian sentiment. Whatever its ori- 
gin, that inspiring tune gives one the 
impression that it has for its soul the 
vibrations started and perpetuated by 
the militant tread of the young Naza- 
rene down through the centuries. It 
is thought by some devout students that 
the air of all secular music that en- 
dures is caught from the influence of 
Jesus upon our civilization. I do not 
present these conclusions, which are 
inferential, as facts. I mention them 
to pave the way for a more sweeping 
proposition. All secular music, as we 
shall see later on, is in Jesus’ grasp. In 
other words, the influence He started 
down the highway of time gave the 
world its musical grammar and rhet- 
orie. 

It would require long and tedious 
research to catalogue the songs that 
either bear the name of Jesus or are 
based upon Christian sentiment or 
hope. <A study of hymnology would 
embrace so many periods and countries 
and tongues that to complete it one 

[ 123 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


would be compelled to spend large 
money and to devote probably his en- 
tire life to the task. 

Opera and symphony have immor- 
talized names, but oratorio has blazed 
forth the stars of magnitude. 

Such masters as Beethoven, Haydn, 
Bach, Arnold, Macfarren, Stainer, 
Schutz, Parry, Gounod, Sullivan and 
Schneider each soared higher in his 
oratorio exalting the Christ than im 
any other production. 

Mendelssohn’s two great produc- 
tions were ‘‘St. Paul’? and ‘‘Elijah.”’ 
However, when we contemplate the 
fact that Mendelssohn was a devout 
student of the Bible, we could readily 
surmise that had he lived longer he 
would have crowned his great reputa- 
tion by lifting Jesus of Nazareth up 
in perhaps the greatest of oratorios. 
But it is not necessary to draw upon 
the imagination regarding what might 
have been had that high-minded Chris- 
tian Jew not passed on in his thirty- 
ninth year. Among his effects was 

[ 124 ] 


MUSIC 


found a manuscript, ‘‘Christus,’’ incom- 
plete because the stroke of apoplexy 
had dashed from his hand the gifted, 
consecrated pen. 

Anna W. Patterson, in ‘‘The Story 
of Oratorio,’’ refers thus to Handel’s 
major contribution: 

‘‘Were all musical masterpieces, save one, 
doomed to destruction, perhaps that most salu- 


tary for preservation would be Handel’s great 
oratorio, ‘The Messiah.’ ”’ 


Again she says: 


‘‘Handel found in the Messiah a theme 
above every theme whereon to base the greatest 
oratorio of his own and subsequent times—for 
the day seems yet far distant when we can 
point to a tone-cathedral more magnificent and 
sublime than that which the great Saxon has 
erected in honor of the Son of God.”’ 


The historian can neither add, sub- 
tract nor evade. He must do two 
things—pass along the highway of his 
subject with his eyes wide open, and 
faithfully record what he sees. Hence, 
Jesus shines in the history of music 
as does the sun in the universe. No 

[ 125 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


matter how long the list of authors one 
consults, he will not find an attempt 
at a history of music with the influence 
of Jesus eliminated. Moreover, should 
one try to find a history of music 
containing only meager reference to 
the spell of the Christian religion over 
this art, his quest would be without 
avail. Every historian dealing with 
music, as a general subject, must de- 
vote large space to the part the Chris- 
tian religion has played in its develop- 
ment. I could quote from many 
authors, and what each has said con- 
cerning the upward urge the Christian 
religion has given to music would be 
convincing and fascinating. But space 
can be accorded only a few. 

Prof. Edmond Dickinson, of Ober- 
lin College, is on record as follows: 


‘‘In the very nature of the case, a new en- 
ergy must enter the art of music when enlisted 
in the ministry of Christ. A new motive, a 
new spirit, unknown to Greek or Roman or 
even Hebrew, had taken possession of the re- 
ligious consciousness. To the adoration of the 

[ 126 ] 


MUSIC 


same Supreme Power, before whom the Jew 
bowed in awe-stricken reverence, was added the 
recognition of a gift which the Jew still dimly 
hoped for; and this gift brought with it an 
assurance, and hence a felicity, which was never 
granted to the religionist of the old dispensa- 
tion.’’ 


We attribute the crigin of nature’s 
melodies to the Creator, and think but 
little about it. But the beginning of 
music among men is a subject which 
mightily interests the historian. How- 
ever, each ambitious chronicler of mu- 
sical progress reaches the point where 
his research must end. When, where 
and how human music began is, and 
perhaps will ever be, a matter of un- 
satisfactory conjecture. Various the- 
ories have been advanced, but no one 
has supported his theory with facts. 
Nevertheless, the history of music has 
been successfully traced through na- 
tions and races and tribes back to a 
time very remote. 

This does not mean, though, that 
music as an art existed in the long ago. 

9 SPAN, 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 





It might be called one of the later arts. 
Music in the abstract came down 
through the ages to meet One who 
would put it into the concrete. It 
was not until Jesus began, through 
His religion, to lay His hands upon 
and appropriate and organize the great 
worth-while things that science entered 
music and made it the finest of arts. 
The process was, of course, necessarily 
slow. Men with power in their hands 
and men of musical talent were nec- 
essary, but such could be used only 
as they voluntarily yielded themselves 
to this service. 

Gregory the Great, at about the 
close of the sixth century, was vitally 
interested in music, and through him 
an elementary system his day had in- 
herited was partially developed. Char- 
lemagne, in the latter part of the eighth 
and the early part of the ninth centur- 
les, saw to it that the Gregorian system 
was widely used. And, as a matter of 
course, men of genius, here and there, 
saw its defects and thought of ways 

[ 128 ] 


MUSIC 


to remedy them. Thus, as the centuries 
passed, music slowly progressed toward 
a satisfactory basis. In other words, 
it gradually became scientifically or- 
ganized. And when this was accom- 
plished, its basic structure was finished. 
The art of music still responds to the 
touch of constructive genius, but its 
fundamental rules have been fixed for 
centuries. 

Recently, I was sitting on the mez- 
zanine floor of a leading hotel—listen- 
ing to the orchestra during the noon 
lunch hour. <A violinist displeased the 
director. At the conclusion of the se- 
lection an argument ensued—the vio- 
linist maintaining that he had played 
his part accurately. The director ter- 
minated the dispute by saying: ‘‘The 
rules were fixed before you and I were 
born, and I shall hold you to them.’’ 
I do not know what it was to which the 
director referred, but it was ‘‘fixed’’ 
and could not be changed. It reminded 
me of, and doubtless respected, state- 


ments made in histories of music. 
[ 129 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


In his book, ‘‘The Art of Musie,’’ 
C. Hubert Parry discusses at length 
what he terms ‘‘the system,’’ which 
‘four ancestors gradually evolved for 
our advantage,’’ and asserts that it 
will probably be many centuries before 
it will give place to a new system. 'T'o 
whom did he refer? As a musician, 
and writing for the benefit of musicians, 
he had in mind the professional ances- 
tors of musicians—men who somewhere 
back in the centuries established the 
present-day basis of music. 

Frederick Louis Ritter, in a small 
book, ‘‘Manual of Music,’’ throws some 
light on the matter: 


‘Music, being assigned such an important 
office in connection with liturgical service, be- 
came the subject of continual study; a musical 
erammar, giving the necessary rules for the 
mastery of the system of the ecclesiastical modes, 
the reading of the notes, the tradition of singing 
the cantus planus and the chants, gradually 
established itself.’’ 


Prof. Waldo Seldon Pratt, of Hart- 
ford Theological Seminary, who is the 
[ 130 | 


MUSIC 


author of several books on music, de- 
parts from the usual method of the his- 
torian and sums up the whole matter 
in a chapter. In his ‘‘Musical Minis- 
tries in the Church,’’ he says: 


‘*TIt is worth remembering, in the first place, 
that the art of music is what it is to-day largely 
in consequence of what religion has done for it. 
The demands that religion has put upon music, 
the opportunities and incentives for its develop- 
ment that religion has afforded, and the basis 
of knowledge and character that religion has 
supplied for musical culture—I mean that these 
have furnished to music the necessary occasion 
and atmosphere and nutriment for its growth 
to the stature of a great and famous art. Musie 
is to a striking degree the creation or child of 
the church. Many of its most ordinary tech- 
nical ways and resources were discovered or in- 
vented because the church needed them.’’ 


The following significant statement 
concludes Professor Pratt’s narration 
of musical accomplishments which have 
remained unaitered to our day: 


‘“‘The important fact for us here is that 
every step in this process was taken by eccle- 
siastics, and primarily for the upbuilding of 

[131 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


echureh musie. Nowhere but in the ehurch was 
there an adequate opening or a sufficient mo- 
tive.’’ 


With reference to the period in 
which music found its center, and the 
accomplishments which permanently 
established it as an art, he says: 


“This point will bear illustration, though 
necessitating reference to a few musical tech- 
nicalities. It is well known that all orderly mu- 
sical procedure in composition rests upon three 
constructive doctrines: Harmony, dealing with 
chords and tonality ; Counterpoint, dealing with 
voice parts and their interweaving, and Form, 
including every grade of the rhythmical dis- 
position of tone materials. In our modern the- 
ories we usually put Harmony first, but his- 
torically Counterpoint was developed first. The 
altogether extraordinary elaboration of Counter- 
point in the later Middle Ages was the first 
systematic effort to deliver music from its an- 
cient bondage to mere practical recitation, and 
to give it laws of internal structure and organ- 
ization somewhat analogous to those of archi- 
tecture. For some three centuries—say, from 
1200 to 1500—almost the entire energy of those 
who made music a real study was put upon the 
solution of this problem, whose difficulty is but 

[ 132 | 


MUSIC 


slightly appreciated by those who have not them- 
selves wrestled with it. The result was the for- 
mation of certain laws of musical grammar and 
rhetoric that have never since been abrogated, 
though their applications have been extended 
and multiplied. Every composer to-day must 
follow the lines of procedure once for all estab- 
lished rudimentarily by tedious experiment and 
toil some five hundred years ago.’’ 


Thus it appears—it is emphatically 
declared by eminent authorities—that 
the Christian religion has wrought out 
and established a system of music 
which the world has accepted, and from 
which none may deviate. ‘T'o put it 
succinctly, Jesus of Nazareth presides 
in every studio of music to-day, His 
hand is on the pen of every composer, 
whether religious or secular, and, in 
substance, He says to them one and 
all: ‘‘I am Master here. Use my gram- 
mar and rhetoric. Follow my instruc- 
tions.’? And they obey Him. Where 
is the composer who would dare to rad- 
ically depart from the fundamental 
rules of music established in the school 


of experience which was overshadow- 
[ 133 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


ed by the Christian religion? Even the 
composer of jazz must observe the 
rules, or there would be no demand 
for his sheets. 

To sum it up: Jesus, in name and 
influence, is the heart-throb of our 
hymnology and of renowned oratorio, 
He is the soul of tunes to great secular 
songs, and He is the Master in the 
universal studio. Were Jesus removed 
from the realm of music, the melody of 
the world, in so far as human instru- 
mentality is concerned, would be 
hushed. 


[ 134 ] 


THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 


HRONOLOGY is not a subject of 

general study—apparently not one 
of general interest. It may be that 
we pay but httle attention to chro- 
nology because it is so dry and tedious 
and laborious to contemplate. Or per- 
haps the Calendar, like numerous other 
great things, is so commonplace that, 
while using it continuously, we never 
pause to give it serious thought. 

It is doubtful if anything in history 
has been the cause of so much brain 
worry as has the problem of reckoning 
time. The peoples of earth began ad- 
dressing themselves to this stupendous 
task in the early years, and on down 
to our own day religious systems, gov- 
ernments and individuals of inquiring 
mind have wrestled with it. 

The Gregorian Calendar has grad- 
ually taken precedence over all others, 

[ 135 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


and it is destined to entirely supplant 
them the world around. In 1577 Greg- 
ory XIII. appointed a commission of 
mathematicians and chronologers to 
consider a readjustment of the Calen- 
dar, and in 1582 he issued a bull 
authorizing the new Calendar. This 
Calendar, owing to his initiative in 
evolving it out of the Julian Calendar, 
bears his name. But it is generally 
known as the Christian Calendar— 
and justly so. 

Kiverything must begin with some- 
thing, even though it be only an as- 
sumption. Jesus as an historical fact 
has not been questioned by modern Cal- 
endar specialists. Nor has there been 
serious contention among them as to 
whether or not the Calendar should 
start with Jesus. The contentions have 
respected the date of Jesus’ birth and 
Easter—especially Easter. The birth 
date, however, has been assumed and 
settled. The Easter question still per- 
plexes—even within recent years, Par- 
hament has discussed it at length. 

[ 136 ] 


THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 


The finer readjustments, still de- 
sired and being wrought upon, matter 
not so far as the objective of this chap- 
ter is concerned. One thing has been 
definitely settled upon, and it is as 
fixed as are the planets the chronol- 
ogers study. It is the CENTER. 
Jesus of Nazareth divides time, as 
men know it. Time, ancient and mod- 
ern, leans upon Him, and upon Him 
only—**B. C.’’ and ‘‘A. D.’’ 

The more enlightened nations pro- 
ceed entirely by the Christian Calen- 
dar. England has taken it to all her 
possessions. And modern business, as 
well as missionary endeavor, is estab- 
lishing it in the remotest parts of earth. 
In a few countries the native instinct 
still clings, in a way, to ancient meth- 
ods of reckoning time. But these 
methods are everywhere receding. In- 
ternational business is transacted on 
the Christian Calendar. There are cal- 
endars many, mostly religious; but 
there is only one aggressive Calendar 
that is entrenching itself the world 

[ 137 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


over—the Calendar that centers in 
Jesus of Nazareth. 

The Christian Calendar is more 
powerful than the Constitution of the 
United States or the constitution of 
any other country. The constitution 
of a nation rules only in the lives of a 
citizenry. The Christian Calendar 
rules in the activity of nations, and in 
diplomatic relationship it rules in the 
affairs of the world. The Christian 
Calendar, as an instrument of present- 
day authority, is more powerful than 
the Bible. The Bible rules only in the 
lives of those who voluntarily accept 
it as authority. The Christian Calen- 
dar rules autocratically in the lives of 
all. The Christian Calendar is the most 
powerful thing in the world. 

Recently a society for the promo- 
tion of atheism applied for a charter in 
the State of New York. That applica- 
tion was formally presented on the 
Christian Calendar—in other words, in 
the name of Jesus legal permission was 
sought to prove that there is no God! 

[ 138 ] 


THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 


But there was no other method of 
procedure left to the New York athe- 
ists. Applications for charters must be 
made, and charters must be granted, in 
the name of Jesus. It is the law. 

No man in the leading civilized 
countries can transfer property, write 
a check, make his will or in any way 
identify himself with business or gov- 
ernment without recognizing Jesus in 
the Christian Calendar. Universal 
business is transacted and governments 
are run in the name of Jesus. 

Men who talk against the Christian 
religion sometimes boast that the name 
of Jesus does not appear in the Dec- 
laration of Independence, the Consti- 
tution of the United States or the in- 
duction oath of public office in the 
United States. The fact remains, how- 
ever, that the inauguration of the Pres- 
ident, for example, is recorded in the 
name of Jesus, and that every official 
act of the President is performed in 
the name of Jesus. Also both the Dec- 
laration of Independence and the Gon- 

[139 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


stitution of the United States are dated 
in the name of Jesus. The method of 
dating the Constitution looks a little 
odd in this day—a day which takes a 
short cut to everything. The Consti- 
tution ends as follows: 

‘Done in Convention by the unanimous con- 
sent of the States present the seventeenth day 


of September in the year of our Lord one thon- 
sand seven hundred and eighty-seven.’’ 


[ 140 ] 


INGERSOLL 


OBERT G. INGERSOLL is com- 

monly referred to as ‘‘the great 
agnostic.’’ The new Standard Dic- 
tionary names him as an agnostic, and 
so do other reference-books. But In- 
gersoll was more than an agnostic. He 
was not always content to say, ‘‘I do 
not know.’’ He passed on too recently 
for his lectures and writings to have 
been garbled or afflicted with interpo- 
lation. His works are in our libraries, 
still fresh and touched with his strik- 
ing personality. And all who have 
read them, know that he, in one way or 
another, emphatically denied the inspi- 
ration of the Bible, the existence of a 
Supreme Being and the deity of Jesus. 
I shall quote a few of his many denials: 


‘“There never was, and there never can be, 
an argument even tending to prove the inspira- 
tion of any book whatever.’’ 


[ 141 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


‘‘Our ignorance is God; what we know is 
science.”’ 

‘‘Beyond the universe there is nothing, and 
within the universe the supernatural does not 
and can not exist.’’ 

‘A deity outside of nature exists in noth- 
ing, and is nothing.”’ 

‘“‘The Jewish God must be dethroned. A 
personal Deity must go back to the darkness of 
barbarism, from whence it came.’’ 

‘‘T can not believe in the miraculous origin 
of Jesus Christ.’’ 

‘Tf it is important for us to know that He 
was the Son of God, I say, then, that it devolves 
upon God to give us the evidence. Let Him 
write it across the face of the heavens in every 
language of mankind.’’ 


Yet Ingersoll was an apostle of not 
only modernism in the broad sense of 
this term, but of the New Theology in 
America. He not only proclaimed our 
present-day modernistic teaching, in 
his own blunt way, but sensed its pene- 
tration of the American pulpit, and, 
judging from some of his utterances, 
he regarded himself as its forerunner. 
He praised the ‘‘advanced’’ theology 


of Germany, and predicted that it 
[ 142 | 


INGERSOLL 


would entrench itself in the pulpit of 
the United States. Moreover, his mem- 
ory 1s revered by leaders in the New 
Theology school. Alfred W. Martin, 
in his book, ‘‘The Life of Jesus in the 
Light of the Higher Criticism,’’ lifts up 
this monument to the advance agent of 
the New Theology in America: 


‘‘T would not be unmindful of the great 
service Ingersoll rendered to religion. Remem- 
bering the particular period in which his work 
was done—those decades of fierce controversy 
over issues now dead beyond all possibility of 
resuscitation—we must gratefully acknowledge 
that no other man of his time did so much to 
help the faith of the past on to the faith of 
the future. Nor is it extravagant to maintain 
that much of the liberalism conspicuous in or- 
thodox circles to-day must be attributed, in 
large measure, to Ingersoll’s expose of an- 
tiquated beliefs.’’ 


I admire this author’s honesty and 
frankness. And I think every New 
Theology preacher in America should 
publicly praise Robert G. Ingersoll. 
He favored all such preachers before 


they were born or when they were 
10 [ 143 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


young, and, if gratitude be a virtue, 
they should aid in keeping his memory 
at par in the public mind. 

Had Ingersoll been born in 1873 in- 
stead of 1833, and his sixty-six years 
vouchsafed, he would now be among 
us—and in the zenith of his eloquence 
and magnetism. Were he alive now, 
with a conscience more flexible than 
the monitor so manifest in his life, and 
should feel so inclined, he would doubt- 
less be the most outstanding New The- 
ology preacher in the country. Pre- 
tending a reverence for things sacred, 
he could so phrase his thoughts as to 
make his lectures on the gods and the 
Bible and Jesus great New Theology 
sermons. 

However, Ingersoll was born too 
soon for such a career. And were he 
here to-day, it is my opinion that we 
would know the same honest, outspoken 
man we see in the recent history of the 
American platform. One may disagree 
with Ingersoll, but he can not help 
admiring his honesty and the above- 

faces 


INGERSOLL 


board manner in which he played the 
game. We can not think of duplicity in 
connection with the name, ‘‘Ingersoll.’’ 
That great orator was too honest to 
proclaim his unbelief in the garb of 
religion, and on salary from church 
or bible chair. He provided his own 
auditorium, and was strictly honest 
with the public. When the people as- 
sembled to hear him speak, they knew 
he would endeavor to cut the founda- 
tion from under the Christian religion. 
They went, the majority of them, out 
of curiosity, but when they sat in his 
audience they knew they were looking 
at an honest man. He babbled not 
about ‘‘human genius’’ and its close 
kinship to inspiration—he told them 
that the Bible was not inspired. He 
did not endeavor to explain that in the 
concept we call God there is something 
of value—he told his auditors that 
they were deceived about God, and 
that human reason was supreme. He 
talked not about Jesus as ‘‘a son of 
God’’ in some sort of degree above His 
[ 145 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


fellow-men—he declared that Jesus was 
simply a man like other men. He ac- 
cepted the theory of evolution as exact 
science, and thus frequently made him- 
self ridiculous on the platform. And he 
faced the chilling winds of eriticism 
bare-shouldered—he did not, when the 
sting became uncomfortable, don the 
cloak of ‘‘a working hypothesis.’’ In- 
gersoll was not built to ride two horses 
going in opposite directions. And, al- 
though he paved the way for the New 
Theology in America, were he here now 
he would not be a preacher in any pul- 
pit or a professor in any Bible chair. 

Ingersoll was an extensive reader, 
and his memory was a marvel. He read 
the Bible, and it is said that he prac- 
tically knew it by heart. Whether or 
not this be true, a comparison would 
show that more Scripture is quoted 
in a single lecture of his than is likely 
to be found in a dozen New Theology 
sermons to-day. 

I could devote chapters of adverse 
eriticism to Ingersoll’s lectures and 

[ 146 | 


INGERSOLL 


writings, for I am at issue with the 
major part of his teaching. But such 
procedure would not be in line with the 
purpose of this book. I simply wish to 
point out a tremendous oversight upon 
his part. 

Now and then, Ingersoll gave Jesus 
faint praise—he even referred to Him 
as an ‘‘infidel’’! However, his works, 
as a whole, do not even give Jesus a 
prominent seat among the great teach- 
ers. His lengthy tributes to Humboldt 
and Thomas Paine are monumental; 
his brief chapter, ‘‘Christ’s Mission,’’ 
is a slur. 

In the introductory paragraph of 
his lecture on Humboldt, he says: 


‘‘He was one of those serene men, in some 
respects like our own Franklin, whose names 
have all the luster of a star. He was one of 
the few great enough to rise above the super- 
stition and prejudice of his time, and to know 
that experience, observation and reason are the 
only basis of knowledge.’’ 


The concluding paragraph of the 


eulogy reads: 
[ 147] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


‘The world is his monument; upon the eter- 
nal granite of her hills he inscribed his name, 
and there upon everlasting stone his genius 
wrote this, the sublimest of truths: The Uni- 
verse Is Governed by Law.”’ 


His praise of Thomas Paine is more 
elaborate still—to quote even what 
might be called a small part of it is 
forbidden by King Space. Here is a 
sample paragraph: 


‘He lived a long, laborious, useful life. The 
world is better for his having lived. For the 
sake of truth, he accepted hatred and reproach 
for his portion. He ate the bitter bread of 
sorrow. His friends were untrue to him be- 
cause he was true to himself and true to them. 
He lost the respect of what is called society, 
but kept his own. His life is what the world 
calls failure and what history calls success.’’ 


The chapter on ‘‘Christ’s Mission”’ 
contains no eulogistic expressions. 
Instead, it represents Jesus as the 
arch-plagiarist of the ages. He points 
out, at great pains, that Jesus plagia- 
rized from the Old Testament, Buddha, 
Laotsze, Zoroaster, Socrates and Cic- 

[ 148 ] 


INGERSOLL 


ero, and from the ancient Egyptian, 
Greek and Roman superstitions. 
Ingersoll’s mind was like an eagle 
soaring the skies. He seemed able to 
see at a glance practically every his- 
toric thing on a given subject. The 
history packed into a single Ingersoll 
lecture is apt to startle the reader. 
And when one has spent an evening 
reading Ingersoll his brain is likely to 
be in a whirl. How could a busy, 
ever-traveling man like Ingersoll have 
read so much? And how could one hu- 
man brain have retained elaborate, 
exact information on such a variety of 
subjects? These are the wonder ques- 
tions one can not help asking. Yet 
Ingersoll’s eagle eye failed to see the 
most significant thing in all history— 
the authority of Jesus on earth. I am 
positive that he overlooked this, for, 
had he seen it, the man in him would 
have either accepted it or wrestled 
with it. Ingersoll was not built upon 
the plan that ignores or evades. He 
did not see Jesus as a world power in 
[ 149 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


reform and literature and the arts and 
democracy and the Calendar. Why he 
was thus blind will never be known. 

In Ingersoll’s estimation, Jesus was 
insignificant as compared with other 
world teachers—insignificant as com- 
pared with even Humboldt and Paine. 
In his estimation, Jesus was so light of 
mind that in preparing His sermons 
He was driven to the necessity of pur- 
loining the sayings of others and piec- 
ing them together. Yet Jesus is the 
only man of history whom Ingersoll 
was compelled by custom and law to 
daily recognize throughout his life. 

As has been observed, Ingersoll’s 
lectures and writings abound in his- 
tory. He was an adept at specifying 
dates, and he frequently used the 
designations—*‘B. C.’’ and ‘‘A. D.”’ 
It could not have occurred to his 
otherwise quick mind that when on the 
platform ridiculing the Bible, the per- 
sonality of God and the deity of Jesus 
he was continuously recognizing the 
authority of Jesus. 

[ 150 ] 


INGERSOLL 


Jt is probable that a record of In- 
gersoll’s birth was made at court— 
though the law requiring birth records 
was not so exacting then as now. It 
may be said, however, that if his birth 
was recorded the entry was made in 
the name of Jesus. The elementary 
books he studied when a boy—books 
that expanded his mind and supplied 
the splendid English he used—were 
published in the name of Jesus. He 
was admitted to the bar and _ prac- 
ticed law in the name of Jesus. His 
marriage license was issued in the 
name of Jesus. All the business of his 
life was transacted in the name of 
Jesus. His death certificate and burial 
permit were recorded in the name of 
Jesus. His estate was settled in the 
name of Jesus. His works are to-day 
published and distributed in the name 
of Jesus. 

When Ingersoll started for a given 
point to deliver a thunderbolt lecture 
against the fundamentals of the Chris- 
tian religion, he purchased a ticket 

mess 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


stamped in the name of Jesus and paid 
for it with money issued in the name 
of Jesus. On the train, which made 
every mile of its schedule in the name 
of Jesus, he entertained himself with 
magazines and books and daily papers 
published in the name of Jesus, and 
from the train he sent his telegrams in 
the name of Jesus. 

Upon arrival at his destination, he 
registered at a hotel in the name of 
Jesus. In the dining-room he ordered 
his meals from the menu ecards printed 
in the name of Jesus. At the ap- 
pointed hour he arose in a hall, built 
and maintained in the name of Jesus, 
and leased for him in the name of 
Jesus, and there he hurled an orator- 
ical tornado at the religion Jesus 
founded. The next morning he read 
the glowing report of his brilliant lec- 
ture. And had he glanced thought- 
fully at the date-line, he might have 
discovered that his great reputation as 
a ridiculer of the religion of Jesus was 
heralded in the name of Jesus! 

palsy: 


THE JEWS 


T is not necessary to dwell at length 

upon the well-known fact that Jew- 
ish teaching never recognizes Jesus as 
the Christ. Jews everywhere are 
taught that Jesus was a man, plus 
nothing. They generally regard Him 
as a religious enthusiast who sought 
to be a reformer, or as an impostor. 
The latter view is more likely to be 
found on the orthodox side of Judaism. 
No Jew could in any way express rec- 
ognition of Jesus’ deity and remain 
in the fold. Yet the Jews of Europe 
and America, and likewise Jews in 
other parts of the world, are compelled 
to daily recognize the authority of 
Jesus. 

In a preceding chapter we observed 
that Jews close their business houses 
every year on December 25—out- 
wardly, at least, in celebration of Jesus’ 

[ 153 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


birth. This is, of course, in line with 
custom. Nevertheless, I am calling at- 
tention to facts—and it is a fact that 
Jews close on Christmas Day. 

Moreover, in this and other coun- 
tries the Jew—especially the large Jew- 
ish merchant or banker—closes his 
business on Sunday. Sunday has dis- 
placed the Sabbath in the public mind. 
Sunday closing is a general custom, 
and to it the prominent Jew in busi- 
ness can not say ‘‘nay.’’ In bowing to 
custom, he bows to authority. It may 
be added that in many localities the 
Jew, like the Gentile, must close his 
place of business on Sunday because 
it is the law. And be it remembered 
that Sunday is set apart as the day on 
which tradition says Jesus arose from 
the tomb. (As I am not yet permitted 
to reopen the Bible, I can do nothing 
other in this connection than employ 
the word ‘‘tradition.’’) 

It is to the Jews’ anomalous predic- 
ament, enforced by the Christian Cal- 
endar, that I wish to eall special atten- 

[ 154 ] 





THE JEWS 


tion. As we have already observed, 
the Christian Calendar must be recog- 
nized in every human transaction that 
involves an obligation. 

The Jewish Encyclopedia, prepared 
by more than four hundred scholars 
and specialists, was, of course, copy- 
righted and published in the name of 
Jesus. ‘This comprehensive work con- 
tains a lengthy explanation of the Jew- 
ish Calendar, yet throughout its vol- 
umes the Christian Calendar is used. 
The abbreviation, ‘‘B. C.,’’ is inva- 
riably used when dating events prior 
to the Christian era. The fact that 
this is the only way, and that it is 
therefore compulsory, does not make 
insignificant the observation. ‘The 
ereatest literary production of the 
Jewish mind must, from beginning 
to end, submit to authority which in 
some way proceeds from Jesus. 

Also, the ‘‘American Jewish Year 
Book’’ for 1925-26, issued by the Jew- 
ish Publication Society of America, is 
compelled to recognize the authority 

P1155] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


of Jesus. The Jewish Year Book con- 
tains ‘‘A Survey of the Year 5685,”’ 
and a footnote makes this explanation: 
‘‘The period covered by this Survey is 
from Apr. 1, 1924, to March 31, 1925.”’ 
Not at all insignificant when one re- 
alizes that the Jewish Calendar has to 
be explained to Jews in the light of 
the Christian Calendar! 

Jesus of Nazareth, in the Jewish 
synagogue, is an historic impostor or 
would-be reformer or great teacher— 
His standing depends upon the ortho- 
doxy or liberality of the pulpit that 
refers to Him. Yet the synagogue it- 
self, whether Orthodox or Reform, 
mutely, but eloquently, recognizes the 
authority of Jesus. The title to the 
ground on which it stands is recorded 
in His name. The permit for its ereec- 
tion was granted in His name. The 
architectural specifications were con- 
tracted for and delivered in His name. 
The synagogue, from start to finish, 
was builded in His name—the con- 
tracts for excavation, stone and wood- 

[ 156 J 


THE JEWS 


~ 


work, tiling, painting, decorating and 
furnishing were all let and executed in 
His name. And the synagogue is main- 
tained in the name of Jesus. Every 
piece of repair work is done and every 
ton of coal is shoveled into the cellar 
in the name of Jesus. Even the rab- 
bi’s salary check is made out in the 
name of Jesus! 

Law bends not to the convenience 
of either race or creed. Hence, Jews, 
like other people, are born in the name 
of Jesus, they are married in the name 
of Jesus, they transact their business 
in the name of Jesus, they handle 
money (lots of it) issued in the name 
of Jesus, they die and are buried in the 
name of Jesus, and their estates are 
executed in the name of Jesus. Where 
is the Jew who can transact an item 
of business, take a journey, provide his 
daily food, live a day or die without 
recognizing the authority of the young 
man from Nazareth ? 

Also, the fact that Jesus is more 
and more compelling the respect of 

[157] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


leading Jews, in America and other 
countries, merits special emphasis. 

The Jewish Encyclopedia treats 
Jesus with distant, stately courtesy. 
Nevertheless, it discusses Him at great 
length and with considerable respect. 
Jewish historians and scholars have 
dignified Jesus as an historical per- 
sonage of influence and power. And 
others of the Jewish race have praised 
Him in terms that are surprising. 
Claude G. Montefiore wrote an appre- 
ciation of Jesus and likewise a com- 
mentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 
Joseph Jacobs wrote a complimentary 
study of Jesus entitled, ‘‘As Others 
Saw Him.’’ And rabbis frequently 
get into the headlines as a result of 
pulpit references to Jesus that are ex- 
traordinary. As late as 1925, Rabbi 
Wise made statements respecting Jesus 
that startled the public and that tem- 
porarily embarrassed his standing as 
a Jewish teacher. 

‘‘A Jewish View of Jesus,’’ by H. 
G. Enelow, published in 1920, is per- 

[ 158 ] 


ee SE eee 


THE JEWS 


haps the most liberal recent book from 
the pen of a Jew. This book is exceed- 
ingly complimentary in its references 
to Jesus. Yet, in the author’s mind, it 
is written within the limitations of 
Jewish orthodoxy. Liberal quotations 
from it will constitute an asset worth 
while in support of the proposition that 
Jesus was and is more than man. 

Neither this book nor any other 
writings of lLberal-minded Jews should 
be regarded as an indication that the 
Jewish people are about ready to ac- 
cept Jesus as a divine personage, for 
they are not. The rank and file of 
Jews are not in sympathy with dis- 
courses upon the worth of Jesus as a 
man, which are delivered by some of 
their leaders. Nor do the exceptional 
rabbis and writers who eulogize Jesus 
accept Him, in any sense, as the fulfill- 
ment of Messianic prophecy. 

The first paragraph in ‘‘A Jewish 
View of Jesus”’ reveals clearly the gen- 
eral Jewish attitude toward Jesus. It 
reads: 

11 [ 159 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


‘‘A study of the relation of Jesus to the 
Jews, from the Jewish point of view, is still a 
somewhat hazardous undertaking, exciting sus- 
picion or fear of one kind or another. Ortho- 
dox Christians will suspect an element of ir- 
reverence in a Jew’s treatment of Jesus. The 
old-fashioned Jew, on the other hand, may ob- 
ject altogether to such a discussion, as giving 
undue attention to a foreign subject. Consid- 
eration of Jesus on the part of a Jew is regarded 
as a sign of weakness, if not disloyalty; as a 
leaning in the wrong direction, particularly if 
it shows symptoms of admiration for Jesus.’’ 


The author makes it plain that, 
notwithstanding his great admiration 
for Jesus, he stands with his people in 
denying that Jesus was the Messiah. 
The following statement is clear-cut: 


‘‘Perhaps it is well, first of all, to dispose 
of the question asked most often and most in- 
stinctively by Christians; namely, whether the 
modern Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. That 
the Jews, whether modern or ancient, Reform 
or Orthodox, do not acknowledge the divinity of 
Jesus is known to all. It is understood that 
Jews could not do that and still remain Jews, 
as the very foundation of all Judaism is the 
unity and the spiritual nature of God, and the 

[ 160 ] 


THE JEWS 


Jewish religion has never in the least compro- 
mised on this fundamental principle. Only in 
so far as all humanity is divine, formed in the 
divine image and with divine possibilities, can 
the Jew associate the idea of divinity with Jesus. 
It is commonly understood that the acceptance 
of Jesus as Divinity is quite out of the ques- 
tion for the Jew. But do the Jews of to-day, 
or any part of them, find it possible to accept 
Jesus as the Messiah? The answer is that they 
do not find it possible to do so, and for the 
reason that the ideas associated in the Jewish 
mind with the Messiah not only were left un- 
realized by Jesus, but have remained unful- 
filled to this day.’’ 


Professor Graetz, a Jewish histo- 
rian, asserts that Jesus is the only man 
of whom it may be said that He 
achieved more by His death than by 
His hfe. The author of ‘‘A Jewish 
View of Jesus’’ does not take sharp 
issue with this. However, he argues 
at length that the Jews did not insti- 
gate the death of Jesus, and places 
the responsibility of that tragedy en- 
tirely upon the Roman Government. 
After much conjecture regarding the 

[161] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


improbability of Jewish influence and 
domination at the Roman court, he 
records his own opinion: 


‘*In reality, there seems no reason to doubt 
that Pilate, hearing of Jesus, regarded him as 
a new claimant to the part of Messiah, of the 
kind he had learned to fear as chiefs of rebel- 
lon. As it was the season of Passover, when 
the city was full of pilgrims and of national 
enthusiasm, his fears grew the worse. He there- 
fore ordered the arrest of the new leader and 
his immediate trial and execution.’’ 


This statement, which is followed 
by an argument against the atonement, 
seems to be an effort upon the part 
of the author to remove Jesus still fur- 
ther from the supernatural. He fol- 
lows it up with an explanation of 
Jesus’ resurrection in the widespread 
prestige of His name: 


‘‘He died a Jew, having no idea that he 
was destined to be called the founder of a new 
faith, to supersede or destroy his own. That 
this part fell to him was due entirely to the 
small group of men and women that had fol- 
lowed him and stood by him to the last, be- 
eause they loved him.’’ 

[ 162 ] 


THE JEWS 


Further on in the same chapter he 
puts it in another way: 

‘‘It was this band of loyal men and women 
that thus saved the name of Jesus from ob- 
livion. Whether Jesus would have. approved 
their conception of him as the Messiah, or 
whether it meant to them what later it came to 
mean, is quite apart. It was they who made 
the name of Jesus immortal. 

‘‘Naturally their number grew, but the most 
important addition to their ranks they gained 
when joined by Paul.’’ 

Then follows lengthy argument to 
prove that Paul, instead of Jesus, 
founded the Christian church. I am 
forbidden to quote the New Testament. 
Nor can I debate the question as to 
whether Jesus or Paul founded the 
church. However, I can say that the 
author of ‘‘A Jewish View of Jesus”’ 
clasps hands very warmly with the 
New Theology writers, who almost in- 
variably arrive at the conclusion that 
Paul was the founder of the Chris- 
tian religion. 

Rabbi Enelow also avers that the 
worth-while things in Jesus’ teaching 

[ 163 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


were either taken from the Old Tes- 
tament or inspired by the Jewish 
religion. After elaborating upon this 
proposition, he says: 

“That he himself regarded his teaching as 
a pure expression of the Jewish religious ideal 
—as a fulfillment of the law and the prophets— 
one can hardly doubt.’’ 

Thus it is seen that this modern 
Jew, in the argumentative part of his 
book, strips Jesus of the supernatural, 
of fundamental originality, of au- 
thority and of everything else that 
would immortalize the name of a man 
—just as the New T'heology writers do. 
And he concludes that but for the loy- 
alty of a few men and women and the 
accidental conversion of Paul the name 
of Jesus would have perished from the 
earth. Yet, outside the limitations of 
argument, he appears strangely com- 
pelled to place Jesus upon the high- 
est earthly pedestal, and to pay Him 
homage close akin to worship. The 
folowing is an assembly of a few 
paragraphs and single statements se- 

[ 164 ] 


THE JEWS 


lected from many such that appear, 
here and there, in his book: 


‘“‘There are many reasons why a Jew should 
be interested in Jesus. First of all, Jesus has 
become the most popular, the most studied, the 
most influential figure in the religious history 
of mankind.’’ 

**In the second half of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, we know, there were many attacks upon 
traditional religion. Criticism of every kind, 
historical and philosophical, was directed against 
it. Many thought that the fortress of faith 
could not long endure. One thing, however, is 
remarkable. Amid all these assaults, the world 
kept on studying Jesus, and regarding him 
from every conceivable angle. New biographies 
of Jesus were produced from most diverse points 
of view; from the physiological, the psychologi- 
eal and pathological points of view, as well as 
from the orthodox. When, several years ago, 
the theory was revived that Jesus never existed 
—that he was a myth—it only served as an 
incentive to the production of new biographies 
of Jesus.’’ 

‘‘As a religious being, the Jew can not help 
taking an interest in the man who, above all 
others, has played a part in religious history.’’ 

‘“Whether we like it or no, Jesus has fas- 
cinated mankind.”’ 


[ 165 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


The book is concluded with this 
glowing tribute to the young Naz- 
arene: 


‘“Who ean compute all that Jesus has meant 
to humanity? The love he has inspired, the 
solace he has given, the good he has engen- 
dered, the hope and joy he has kindled—all 
that is unequaled in human history. Among 
the great and the good that the human race has 
produced, none has even approached Jesus in 
universality of appeal and sway. He has be- 
come the one fascinating figure in history. In 
him is combined what is most mysterious and 
most enchanting in Israel—the eternal people 
whose child he was. The Jew can not help 
glorying in what Jesus thus has meant to the 
world; nor can he help hoping that Jesus may 
yet serve as a bond of union between Jew and 
Christian, once his teaching is better known, 
and the bane of misunderstanding at last is re- 
moved from his words and his ideal.’’ 


The language this Jewish author 
employs is not extravagant. The 
gauntlet of criticism Jesus has run 
down through the centuries—and espe- 
cially during the past century—would 
have destroyed all faith in Him, had 


He been mere man or a myth. But He 
[ 166 ] 


THE JEWS 


stands forth to-day as the Jew has 
described Him—‘‘the one fascinating 
figure in history.”’ 

The Jews will not—Rabbi Enelow 
says they can not—see in Jesus their 
Messiah. But they know He is the 
center of literature, the major subject 
of art and the soul of music. They are 
compelled by law to recognize Him 
daily in their business affairs. And 
their keen-visioned leaders are begin- 
ning to call unto them to give pause 
and to admire Him—the Jew who is 
fascinating the world. 


[ 167 ] 


A MYTH 


VG SS along Broadway, New 
York City, one afternoon, I saw 
a sign: ‘‘Buy the Infidel Paper.” I 
purchased a copy of The Truth Seeker, 
which I have kept and now have spread 
open on my desk. 
An editorial, ‘‘A Bird’s-eye View of 
Jesus,’’ begins thus: 


‘< Jesus, as seen by a man in the twentieth 
century, looks insignificant.’ 


A paragraph reads: 


‘‘Looking upon Jesus from the twentieth 
century, he is seen as a traveling exhorter in 
a country which believed in angels and devils 
and exhibitions of divine manifestations, in an 
age of mental darkness lighted up by miracles, 
followed by persons of no education and no 
character.”’ 


A closing sentence affirms: 


‘‘A bird’s-eye view of Jesus shows him not 
a god, not a man, but a myth.’’ 
[ 168 ] 


A MYTH 


The writer of this editorial demon- 
strated very clearly the dictionary defi- 
nition of a ‘‘bird’s-eye view’’—‘‘seen at 
a glance.’’ But even his ‘‘glance’’ was 
twisted. He saw Jesus first as an ‘‘in- 
significant’? somebody, ‘‘a_ traveling 
exhorter’’ in a benighted age and in 
a country especially afflicted with su- 
perstition, and followed by ‘‘persons 
of no education and no character,”’ 
then as ‘‘not a god, not a man, but a 
myth.’’ And evidently his ‘‘glance’’ 
did not even reach to the top of his own 
editorial page. For there he would 
have read that The Truth Seeker was 
founded by D. M. Bennett in 1873, and 
that the date of the enlightening edito- 
rial he was writing was to be Oct. 27, 
1923. 

I likewise have before me a copy of 
a great and popular magazine. It con- 
tains a featured article by Edwin 
Bjorkman, entitled, ‘‘Am I a Chris- 
tian ?”’ 

Mr. Bjorkman frankly acknowl- 
edges that he regards Jesus as a myth, 

[ 169 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


and so refers to Him throughout the 
article. Authors from Bruno Bauer 
down to our day have devoted volumes 
to the ‘‘myth’’ discussion, but this mag- 
azine writer has transcended them all. 
He has succeeded in explaining the 
‘‘myth’’ proposition with a _ gesture. 
His explanation is contained in the fol- 
lowing brief paragraph: 


‘‘The Christ story as we have it, in both its 
natural and supernatural phases, is demonstra- 
bly a conglomerate of pre-Christian myths, some 
modified to suit their novel applications, and 
others taken over practically intact. From this 
abundantly proved fact has sprung the new cur- 
rent of opinion already suggested. It sees, in 
the exalted figure at the heart of all religions 
called Christian, a myth gradually built up by 
the race-mind for the symbolic embodiment of 
man’s ever-recurring dream about an agency 
eapable of leading him out of the misery and 
despair that result from his lack of authentic 
communication with the omnipotent power 
sensed behind life’s perplexing phenomena.’’ 


It is to be regretted that this il- 
luminating paragraph arrived so late. 
Had it appeared early enough in the 

[170 ] 


A MYTH 


‘‘myth’’ investigation, it might have 
saved a lot of brainwork. Had this 
streak of light bit the earth on time, 
men like Voltaire, Kalthoff, Niemojew- 
ski, Jensen, Karl Voller, J. M. Robert- 
son and W. B. Smith would probably 
not have labored so strenuously to 
prove Jesus a myth. And had Drews 
and von Soden read this lucid para- 
graph in 1909, the great debate would 
probably not have occurred in Berlin 
in 1910. 

The major paragraph of the article 
reads: 


‘‘Another aspect of this myth has played a 
part in shaping the conclusion to which this 
self-scrutiny led me—an aspect that impressed 
me deeply as soon as it occurred to me. While 
I am pondering whether I should call myself a 
Christian or not, there are millions of people 
in other parts of the globe who have no hesita- 
tion at all on that score. Of course I am a 
Swede and a European by birth, an American 
by nationality and adaptation, an Occidental by 
geographical location, and a member of the so- 
ealled white races anthropologically. But to in- 
numerable Moslems, Buddhists, Brahmanists 

PL TLE 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


and Confucians, all such distinetions are sub- 
merged in my membership of that part of hu- 
manity which constitutes modern Christendom. 
To all such outsiders I am first and last a Chris- 
tian, no matter what I may say about it. The 
community of different peoples is determined 
partly by their own sense of it, and partly by 
their common juxtaposition to other parts of 
the human race. From both points of view, 
Christianity remains a real and living fact even 
at this late day, and I find myself a part of it.’’ 


This man is certainly fenced in 
and chained down—his escape is im- 
possible. But read the pathetic state- 
ment near the close of his article: 


‘‘Believe what I may, I am a member, by 
birth and upbringing, by political allegiance 
and cultural tradition, of a vast number of 
racial groups scattered all over the earth, and 
held together, nominally at least, by a name and 
an idea, a myth and a dream.’’ 


This is an admission worth ponder- 
ing. Mr. Bjorkman has to accept what 
he does not believe, and he 7s what he 
knows he is not. Religiously, he is as 
a prisoner in irons, and can move 
neither hand nor foot. But by what 

[ 172 ] 


A MYTH 


is he thus securely held? Only a myth! 
And had it occurred to him he might 
have said, in a footnote, that his article 
would appear in the April number of 
the Century, which the myth had de- 
creed should be dated 1926! 

‘The Christ Myth,’ by Arthur 
Drews, is perhaps the most elaborate 
denial of Jesus’ existence that has 
found a place in literature. It has, at 
any rate, occasioned more widespread 
interest and discussion than has any 
other. 

Professor Drews, like his predeces- 
sors, parallels everything Christian 
with something pagan, and, in his own 
mind, arrives at correct conclusions. 
Space will not permit extended ref- 
erences, but a couple of sample con- 
clusions may be recorded. Here is one: 


‘‘In reality, the whole of the family and 
home life of the Messiah, Jesus, took place in 
heaven among the gods. It was only reduced 
to that of a human being in lowly circumstances 
by the fact that Paul described the descent of 
the Messiah upon the earth as an assumption 

[173 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


of poverty and a relinquishment of his heav- 
enly splendor. Hence, when the myth was trans- 
formed into history, Christ was turned into a 
‘poor’ man in the economic sense of the word, 
while Joseph, the divine artificer and father of 
the sun, became an ordinary carpenter.’’ 


According to Drew’s method of 
reasoning (and it is also the method 
pursued by some of the New The- 
ology writers), Paul, an ‘‘epileptic,”’ 
founded the Christian religion. Paul 
was keen of intellect, and likewise sub- 
ject to visions—this was probably due 
to his ailment. And, besides, he had 
been reared at a superstitious center. 
Henee, it was easy for him to honestly 
deceive himself, and, incidentally, to 
deceive millions of people down to our 
day. But had it not been for the 
accident of Paul’s conversion, which 
was an illusion, the myth known as 
Jesus and Christ would not have been 
here for the thinkers of our day to 
wrestle with. 

There were many myths in the 


olden times, and myths are still nu- 
[ 174 ] 


A MYTH 


merous. but Jesus has attracted more 
attention than have all the other myths 
put together. Why? Drew’s thesis, 
taken as a whole, explains it. He 
makes a wonderful composite of the 
myths. He bunches practically all of 
the major old-time myths into the 
Jesus myth. In other words, about all 
of the ancient myths were put together 
into one big myth—our present-day 
myth. Hence, his conclusion: 


‘* Jesus, the Christ, the Deliverer, Saviour, 
Physician of oppressed souls, has been from first 
to last a figure borrowed from myth.’’ 


Professor Drews, as are the rest of 
us, is in the grasp of the myth. His 
book was originally published in the 
name of Jesus, it was translated and 
republished in the name of Jesus, and 
it is to-day distributed in the name of 
Jesus. And when reading his book one 
is again impressed with the authority 
of the myth. Like Ingersoll, he draws 
upon history and gives many dates, 
and, like Ingersoll, he is compelled to 

12 PlTon 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


recognize the authority of Jesus. He 
uses the abbreviations ‘‘B. C.’’ and 
‘fA. D.’’ But frequently he recognizes 
Jesus in still a more pronounced way. 
The following is a sample of his phrase- 
ology when locating something in his- 
tory: 


‘‘Seldom in the history of mankind has the 
need for religion been so strongly felt as in the 
last century before Christ and the first century 
after Christ.”’ 


The authority of a myth! And the 
myth’s finger on Drews’ pen when 
‘The Christ Myth’’ was written! 

In the preface to the third edition 
of his book, Professor Drews says: 


‘‘The storm which has been raised against 
my book in theological circles and in the press, 
and has even led to mass-meetings of protest in 
the Busch Cireus and in the Dom at Berlin, 
shows me that I have ‘hit the bull’s-eye’ with 
my performance.’’ 


There appears to be an element of 
egotism in this. However, one should 
not pass hasty judgment. Neverthe- 

[ 176 ] 


A MYTH 


less, Professor Drews evidently con- 
cluded that his ‘‘performance’’ had 
accomplished something wonderful. 
He modestly acknowledged that he had 
‘“‘hit the bull’s-eye.’’ Drews, in his pref- 
atory remarks and throughout his the- 
sis, makes it clear that, in his own mind, 
Bruno Bauer and all the other ‘‘ Jesus 
Myth”’ writers had failed to ‘‘hit cen- 
ter. ‘‘Hitting center’’ is equivalent 
to killing. Back of the target is 
reality. ‘‘Shoot the bull in the eye’’— 
old-time advice on _ slaughter-day. 
When a bull was shot in the eye it 
usually dropped, and there was noth- 
ing left of that bull—save a lifeless 
form. If language means anything, 
Professor Drews thought he had killed 
the giant myth—and, judging from the 
loud manifestations of joy in the rad- 
ical camp when ‘‘The Christ Myth’’ 
went forth, many others thought so. 
But a curious thing remains to be con- 
sidered. Professor Drews closed his 
third preface—and it was the last end 
of that ‘‘performance’’—by signing 
eeu 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


his name and writing under it, ‘* Karls- 
ruhe, March, 1910.”’ 

‘The Authority of a Myth,’”’ by a 
Robertson, a Smith or a Drews, would 
be a book worth reading! 


[178 | 


SUMMARY 


ADICAL criticism has not suce- 

ceeded in proving that Jesus of 
Nazareth is a myth. Nor has any 
school of criticism ruled Him out of 
history. The assaults upon the his- 
toricity of Jesus have no more affected 
it than would feathers in the wind’s 
whirl dent a mountain. 

The less radical of the modernists 
admit that Jesus lived, but they con- 
tend that He was nothing more than 
man. Hence, Jesus the man, recog- 
nized by the New Theology as a great 
teacher, now stands before us. 

New Theology writers give Jesus 
place among the world’s teachers, but 
not all of them seem on friendly terms 
with Him. Now and then, a book by 
some one of this school is so hostile 
in its approach that it gives the reader 
an uncomfortable feeling—he almost 

[179 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


suspects that the author has a personal 
grudge against Jesus. ‘‘What We 
Know About Jesus,’’ by Dr. Charles 
F’. Dole, is one of this type. It not 
only divests Jesus of deity, but indi- 
rectly accuses Him of having lacked 
honor and even the finer qualities of 
a gentleman. Dr. Dole goes beyond his 
New Theology brethren in many 
things, but he accepts Jesus as a fact, 
and can not, therefore, be classed as a 
‘‘radical.’? He is radical enough, to 
be sure—but, judged by general New 
Theology standards, he is orthodox! 
The following statement in his book 
does not overreach the New Theology 
viewpoint: 

‘‘In the whole narrative about Jesus, there 
is nothing, aside from the implication of the 
wonder stories (which are no more wonderful 
than those related in Exodus and the Books of 
the Kings), that would lift him into a lonely 


uniqueness above the class of other illustrious 
prophets or teachers of religion.’’ 


The narrative to which this author 
refers is in the New Testament, and, 
[ 180 ] 


SUMMARY 


therefore, not available to me. Hence, 
I can not even question the accuracy 
of his statement. But I can, and shall, 
call attention to an oversight upon the 
part of not only Dr. Dole, but that also 
of practically all writers of his school. 
They seem to overlook the fact that 
there is much in the career of Jesus 
down through modern time which lifts 
Him ‘‘into a lonely uniqueness above 
the class of other illustrious prophets 
or teachers of religion.’’ 

The prophets and teachers of relig- 
ion to whom Dr. Dole refers, and other 
ancient teachers as well, still live in 
their teaching which has been pre- 
served. They have each had a career 
down to our day, and some of them find 
place in high school and college. Great 
teachers of the past are welcomed in 
many schools out of which the Bible 
is barred by law. 

Inasmuch as the New Testament is 
still closed, we are not supposed to 
have knowledge of anything Jesus 
did in the flesh. But there is one thing 

[181 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


we know He did not do. He did not 
write theses on philosophy and morals 
and religion and send them down to 
our day, as did other teachers called 
great. If He wrote, His writing was 
not preserved. At any rate, nothing 
from His pen has ever been discov- 
ered. In this, the old teachers have 
great advantage. And, to make His 
case worse still, the critics of Jesus 
claim that in oral teaching He plagia- 
rized the ancient classics. Neverthe- 
less, a couple of questions. Where do 
the ancient teachers stand in com- 
parison with Jesus? Has one of them 
been lifted ‘‘into a lonely uniqueness’’ 
in world progress ? 

Not one of the great teachers has 
aggressive prestige in the world. Some 
founders of religion hold sway in cer- 
tain parts, but even there their influ- 
ence is waning. As examples, Bud- 
dhism and Confucianism have flour- 
ished only in spots on the earth, and it 
has been repeatedly demonstrated that 
they can not gain hold elsewhere. More- 

[ 182 ] 


SUMMARY 


over, these religions, as are all others 
not Christian, are losing ground. Mis- 
sionaries and world-travelers tell us 
that in India and China and Japan 
—where they have been most in evi- 
dence—these religions are beginning to 
flee before the advancing hght of eivil- 
ization. 

The Christian religion in concrete 
form remains and expands in what- 
ever land planted. Pagan religions 
perish in Christian countries, but the 
Christian religion flourishes in pagan 
countries. but it is not necessary to 
confine one’s observation to organized 
Christianity. Jesus is lifted ‘‘into a 
lonely uniqueness’’ the world around, 
outside of church. Jesus is the One 
unique, not only in literature and the 
arts, reform and world-wide ministra- 
tions of mercy and the ruling Calendar, 
but in all of civilization’s complex 
progress. 

Books that try to prove Jesus a 
myth, or a man like other men, are 
interesting to read—when they contain 

[183 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


research, and are well written. But 
when the greater view of Jesus is taken, 
these books are comical. Such books as 
‘‘The Christ Myth,’’ ‘‘Christianity and 
Mythology”? and ‘‘The Pre-Christian 
Jesus’’ are like paper wads hurled at 
Gibraltar to topple it over or pails of 
water dashed toward the sun to blot it 
out. 

Ingersoll challenged God to write 
that Jesus was His Son across the heav- 
ens, in every language of mankind. Had 
Ingersoll looked up into the heavens 
which constitute the horizon of world 
life, he could have read a _ blazing 
sentence: ‘‘ Jesus is more than man has 
ever been.”’ 

Even this sentence fails to express 
Jesus. It is possible to think of some 
man exceeding all other men in good- 
ness and greatness. But one can not 
give his imagination sufficient range to 
conceive of a mere human being as- 
cending so many heights as has Jesus 
and holding such sway as is in His 
hands. 

[ 184 ] 


SUMMARY 


Jesus has been lifted ‘‘into a lonely 
uniqueness’’ which is beyond the com- 
prehension of any man—‘‘a lonely 
uniqueness’? which, when but faintly 
comprehended, fills the soul with awe. 

Science lets Jesus alone. Jesus is 
beyond the specialists. No _ philoso- 
pher, no psychologist, no sociologist, 
has explained Jesus. Jesus is inex- 
plicable. Jesus in the world’s life is 
the greatest of miracles. Hence, there 
is only one conclusion the finite mind 
can grasp—JESUS IS DEITY. 


[ 185 J 


THE BIBLE REOPENED 


I NOW reopen the Bible, turn to the 
New ‘Testament and read about 
Jesus, the Christ. Nor do I find it 
difficult to believe what I read. 

‘“In the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us.”’ 

‘‘God was manifest in the flesh.’’ 

‘‘And thou shalt call his name JESUS.’’ 

‘‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, 
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.’’ 

‘Christ came, who is over all.’ 

‘*Christ is all, and in -all.’’ 


Thus the references to Jesus, the 
Christ, run from the beginning to the 
end of the New Testament. Moreover, 
in Jesus, the Christ, can be found the 
fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, 
the counterpart of Old Testament type 


and the substance of Old Testament 
[ 186 | 


THE BIBLE REOPENED 


shadow—criticism, Lower and Higher, 
to the contrary notwithstanding. The 
Bible is the Book, and Jesus has been 
appropriately called ‘‘The Man of the 
Book.”’ Jesus is as assuredly the cen- 
ter of the Bible as He is the center 
of time. Modern painters have made 
Him the major subject of art, but be- 
fore their day the inspired writers 
made Him the major subject of the 
Bible. He is the soul of music, but 
before music was organized He was 
the soul of the bible. 

Criticism’s sharp spade has turned 
all the earth about the foundations of 
Holy Writ, its searchlight has flashed 
in every chamber and in every nook 
and corner, and its findings have been 
announced again and again. However, 
the Bible remains—not one of the sa- 
ered books, but the Book. ‘‘Nobody 
reads the Bible any more,’’ we hear on 
the right and the left. How do people 
who say this know it? More copies of 
the Bible are distributed every year 
than during the previous year, and the 

[187 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


distribution is among the people of all 
tongues. The number of copies dis- 
tributed in the United States in 1925 
far exceeded the number distributed in 
1924. Those who maintain that the 
Bible is losing out would do well to 
ask the American Bible Society a few 
questions. Accurate information is the 
only correct basis for an important 
statement. 

The Bible’s major mission is that of 
describing Jesus, the Christ. The Old 
Testament predicts Him, the New Tes- 
tament presents Him. And the fact 
that the circulation of the Bible is in- 
creased each year shows that the peo- 
ples of earth are studying Jesus more 
and more. The Jewish author, quoted 
in a preceding chapter, said: 

‘When, several years ago, the theory was 
revived that Jesus never existed—that he was 
a myth—it only served as an incentive to the 
production of new biographies of Jesus.’’ 

HKivery one who has read knows that 
the Jew’s statement is true. The rad- 
icals have arrived again, with fresh 

[ 188 ] 


THE BIBLE REOPENED 


boldness, and they are declaring from 
the housetops that Jesus is a myth. 
The New Theology folk are more in- 
sistent than ever before in affirming 
that Jesus was only aman. The latter 
teaching is now in books numerous, 
that can even be picked up at the sec- 
ond-hand stores for a song; it is pro- 
claimed from many pulpits in the 
homelands; it is also presented on the 
mission fields. Has it all dissipated 
the publie’s interest in Jesus? The 
tremendous increase in the circulation 
of the Bible can not mean that the 
people of the nations and tribes are 
better satisfied with a myth or a man 
than with the Anointed of God por- 
trayed in the Scriptures. Were this 
so, interest in the Bible would wane 
—people would not waste their time 
reading in an uninspired book about 
a miracle-worker that never existed. 
This would be contrary to human na- 
ture. People do not revel in exploded 

theories. The renewed interest in the ~ 
Bible indicates very clearly that the 

[ 189 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


people are investigating the matter for 
themselves. They desire to see Jesus, 
not divested of personality or deity, 
but as the Bible presents Him—the 
perfect Man, the crucified One, the 
risen Lord, the world’s Redeemer. 
Human achievement is so rapid that 
the marvelous of yesterday is the com- 
monplace of to-day. We are no longer 
amazed at the scientific direction of 
steam or electricity. The whir of com- 
plicated machinery does not now at- 
tract our attention. The automobile 
1S a numerous nuisance—we are ever 
fearing that it will kill us. The mul- 
titudes in open field to watch a man 
fly are assemblies of the past. The 
radio is no longer a novelty in the 
home. Even the headline, ‘‘Photog- 
raphy by Wireless,’’ excites us not. 
Our inventors (discoverers) are con- 
stantly uncovering the powers and pos- 
sibilities of nature all about us, and 
we have ceased to wonder at their finds. 
We take it all as a matter of course— 
it is their business to discover things 
[ 190 ] ' 


THE BIBLE REOPENED 


for the rest of us. Man analyzes the 
earth from center to surface, he meas- 
ures the heavens, he weighs the planets, 
he heralds the far-off coming of new 
stars, and he sees and describes the 
infinitesimal and invisible in nature. 
Also, he looks into the human mind 
and tells us why and how we think. 
And he explains our daily procedure— 
the influence of people upon people, 
things upon things, and conditions 
upon conditions. We survey the won- 
drous works of man and ask: What is 
it that he can not do? What is beyond 
his explanation? As we have already 
seen, man has never duplicated the 
authority and achievements of Jesus. 
Nor has he explained the prestige of 
Jesus among men. Before the tremen- 
dous and ever-increasing, onrushing, 
world-uplifting power of Jesus, human 
wisdom stands abashed. 

Whence the power of Jesus? This 
question is without answer—save in the 
Bible. And the Bible answers, ‘‘God.”’ 
Does some one protest that the Bible 

13 [ 191 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


answer can not be accepted, because 
it does not explain? Replying to this, 
it may be said that nothing is explained 
beyond the possibility of the question, 
‘‘Why?’’ Man can harness nature and 
make it do his bidding, but his ex- 
planations of nature are by no means 
complete and satisfactory. Science has 
not annihilated the question-mark in 
any sphere. But where knowledge 
reaches its limit faith enters in, and 
we accept and proceed. ‘The world 
‘‘walks by faith’? every day. Hven 
Darwin had to bow to the Creator 
when he began his discourse on evolu- 
tion. The Bible, however, is construc- 
tive. The inspired writers have builded 
the plan of the ages so thoroughly 
and solidly that the honest inquirer 
Sees in it reality, and can, therefore, ac- 
cept it. We see and hear and feel and 
know the power of Jesus on earth, and 
ask, ‘‘Whence?’’ The answers to our 
question in the Bible are many, but 
not different except in phraseology. 
One is in 1 Tim. 3: 16: ‘‘God was mani- 
[ 192 ] 


THE BIBLE REOPENED 


fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, 
seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- 
tiles, believed on in the world, received 
up into glory.”’ 

‘*Preached unto the Gentiles, be- 
heved on in the world’’—these state- 
ments, suggesting missionary enter- 
prise upon the part of believers and 
acceptance upon the part of hearers, 
enable us to see in part the reason for 
Jesus’ ever-increasing authority. But 
the heart-throb of His power is con- 
cealed in the statement, ‘‘God was mani- 
fest in the flesh.’’ Here the supernat- 
ural begins and philosophizing ends. 
We look back upon Olivet and behold 
Jesus saying to some disciples, but 
over their heads shouting down through 
the centuries to our generation: ‘‘All 
power is given unto me in heaven and 
in earth.’’ The world, in many ways, 
hears Him, and myriads of voices sing: 


‘“ All hail the power of Jesus’ name! 
Let angels prostrate fall; 
Bring forth the royal diadem, 
And crown Him Lord of all.’’ 
[193 ] 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


FE Jesus was not the Son of God in 

a sense above that in which all men 
are the sons of God, what was He pro- 
fessionally?’’ I asked this question of 
the aged minister of the All Souls’ 
Church, Columbus, O., some years ago. 
‘‘Jesus was a reformer,’’ he replied. 
Another modernist explained to me that 
Jesus was a young religious enthusiast, 
that He was a keen observer of the 
glaring evils of His day, and that He 
set Himself the herculean task of put- 
ting things to rights. This view is 
quite common among modernists. 
Some disposition must be made of 
Jesus’ career, and it is easy to affirm 
that He was a reformer. But when 
the matter is looked into a little, the 
reformer, in the generally accepted 
sense of the word, is not evident in 
J esus. 

[194 ] 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


The Gospels, which constitute our 
only source of information about the 
preaching and the activities of Jesus, 
do not describe or portray Him as a 
mere reformer. 

Reformers identify themselves with 
special causes. And if a reformer’s 
name is preserved, it is in connection 
with the history of the reform he leads 
or aids. If Jesus devoted any consid- 
erable part of His ministry to the op- 
position of an evil system, the Gospels 
are silent about it. Moreover, a re- 
former is vehement in denunciation of 
the system he attacks. Such procedure 
is foreign to the Gospel account of 
Jesus. His denunciations of Pharisa- 
ism were emphatic, and He drove the 
tradesmen out of the temple. But 
these are incidents—they do not bulk 
large in the story of His life. Had He 
been a reformer He would have devoted 
special attention to at least one of the 
institutional sins of His day. This He 
did not do. He railed not against 
political corruption, slavery, human 

[ 195 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


torture, stage licentiousness, child mur- 
der or polygamy. 

There was a content in the preach- 
ing of Jesus that was up to His day, 
and is yet, without parallel. Every 
recorded saying of His is as a rifle-ball 
hitting center. Whether His utterance 
was original or based upon something 
in the Old Testament or a classic, He 
put something into it that sent it 
straight home to the human heart. 
He spoke with authority, which no 
other teacher in all history has success- 
fully assumed. No matter what the 
subject He discoursed upon, there was 
in His message a carrying, driving, 
applying power all His own. No won- 
der the officers who declined to arrest 
Him said to the chief priests: ‘‘ Never 
man spake like this man.’’ 

Jesus taught not for merely His 
day and generation. His teaching con- 
tains the universal and the all-time 
remedy for world ills. 

The physician prescribes, but the 
application of his remedies is in the 

[ 196 ] 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


hands, at the discretion, of his patients. 
Often the patient puts his own ideas 
into the treatment, and complication, 
rather than speedy recovery, is the 
result. Human nature is the same the 
world over and in all generations. 
People cherish their own opinions and 
pit them against the advice of special- 
ists, and confusion that retards or de- 
stroys ensues. 

Back in its early history the organ- 
ized church began substituting human 
opinion for the gospel of Christ. And 
to this day ecclesiasticism has taken 
liberties with the gospel—adding and 
subtracting, as human whim has dic- 
tated. This has resulted in division 
and strife, the retardation of Chris- 
tian progress and history that is tragic. 

‘“‘In union there is strength.’’ It 
is the opposite in division. Attacks 
from without may temporarily embar- 
rass a worthy cause, but they help it 
in the long run. It is internal dissen- 
sion that seriously impairs a righteous 
movement and long defers achievement. 

[197 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Human opinion expressed in ehurchi- 
anity all along the way has resulted in 
division and strife that have greatly 
hindered the progress of Christianity. 

Nevertheless, the world has been so 
changed by the teaching of Jesus that, 
compared with what it was, it might be 
called new: This statement is con- 
firmed by detailed reference in pre- 
ceding chapters—especially in the 
chapter on ‘‘Reform.’’ The changes 
that have obtained in civilization are 
miraculous—human wisdom e¢an not 
explain them. The miracles Jesus per- 
formed while in the flesh were insig- 
nificant compared with the miracles 
He has wrought during the past nine- 
teen centuries. 

The salutary results of Jesus’ 
teaching that obtained during the Dark 
Ages are so obscured that investiga- 
tors can not enumerate and describe 
them sufficiently to lft them into 
satisfactory view. But we know that 
His teaching was preserved during 
that black period, and that it promoted 

[ 198 ] 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


righteous progress through the lives of 
all who ordered their ways in accor- 
dance with the principles it enunciates. 
And we know that since the passing of 
the night the teaching of Jesus has 
been continuously cumulative in per- 
manent achievement. (Preceding chap- 
ters submit the proof.) 

That Jesus is in the pulpit, college 
chair, current literature, legislative 
measures and all other cultural expe- 
dients is a fact so patent that it can 
not be called in question by thinking 
observers. However, He is often seen 
but dimly—even in the pulpit. The 
Christian religion is still greatly ham- 
pered by human opinion, division, 
strife and hypocrisy. The prayer of 
Jesus for the oneness of His followers 
and their sanctification through divine 
truth, that the world may believe, is yet 
only in preliminary process of answer. 
Hence, the apparently slow progress of 
the world toward the supreme stand- 
ards Jesus holds forth discourages 
the near-sighted. 

14 [ 199 | 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


The fundamental principles of the 
Christian religion have made their 
way to, and are cemented in, the foun- 
dations of world progress, as we have 
noted in preceding chapters. No de- 
partment of human advancement is en- 
tirely minus Christian precept at its 
base. And the teaching of Jesus, in 
degree from small to great, is active 
in the private lives of teeming millions. 
It is a leaven bringing about change 
for better in every country. Hence, 
the inevitable conclusion that the teach- 
ing of Jesus is, in its world-wide sweep, 
pushing the world toward its Golden 
Age. 

War does not signify that the 
Christian religion fails, neither does 
feud. War and feud are in the same 
class—the only difference between them 
is that of dimension. Each is the 
result of human failure to thoroughly 
grasp and faithfully apply the Golden 
Rule. When the Christian religion 
shall have been purged of all human- 
ism—freed from every false tenet— 

[ 200 } 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


and division and strife among Chris- 
tians shall have ceased, then the world 
will rapidly learn the way of the Lord 
and climb to the plane of stable think- 
ing, clear vision and tolerance, and the 
guns that kill will be silenced. 

How long will it be until heaven 
shall come down to earth? I do not 
know. Neither do the date-setting 
prophets. God is in Christ ‘‘recon- 
ciling the world unto himself.’’ He is 
doing this through the gospel. ‘‘One 
day is with the Lord as a thousand 
years, and a thousand years as one 
day.”’ 

Jesus was the giant optimist. He 
had no doubts. He spoke with assur- 
ance. He looked down through time 
and saw ultimate success. He declared 
that He would build His own church, 
and that the gates of hell should not. 
prevail against it. 

Hell has assailed the church from 
without and from within. But the 
church endures. It will in oncoming 
years be governed by the teaching of 

[ 201 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


the Christ—plus nothing, minus noth- 
ing. The church of the past, though 
hindered by its own lack of loyalty 
to the teaching of Jesus, has kept Him 
before the world, and He has blessed 
the world. The church to-day, though 
still weighted with man-made doctrines, 
divided and held much in disrepute, is 
the world’s greatest institution, and 
through it Jesus is preaching the gospel 
of everlasting peace and prosperity 
and happiness the globe around. And 
when the chureh shall see ‘‘no man 
save Jesus only,’’ the world’s eyes will 
be rapidly opened and it will see ‘‘no 
man save Jesus only.’’ 

Jesus is ‘‘the way, the truth and 
the life.’’ He is the way along which 
the world must pass out of its wilder- 
ness, He is the truth illuminating the 
way, and he is the life to which the way 
leads. 

Jesus a reformer of the long ago? 
No. He is the world’s Redeemer. The 
man who concludes that Jesus came 
just to save him and a few other peo- 

[ 202 ] 


THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 


ple has a small soul indeed, his vi- 
sion is exceedingly narrow, and his 
knowledge of the Bible is sorely in need 
of repair. The New Testament, from 
beginning to end, stresses both personal 
and world redemption. 

Jesus said: ‘‘I am come that they 
might have life, and that they might 
have it more abundantly.’’ He said 
also: ‘‘God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth in him should not per- 
ish, but have everlasting life.”’ 

Personal redemption is necessarily 
first. There must be disciples—learn- 
ers—to send forth with the message of 
life. And the world must be brought 
to Jesus through the conversion of in- 
dividuals. 

Let it not be forgotten that ‘‘God so 
loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son.’’ A redeemed world— 
this is the great objective. Jesus de- 
clared Himself to be ‘‘the living bread’’ 
for ‘‘the life of the world.’”’ Again, He 
said: ‘‘I am the light of the world.”’ 

[ 203 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Life is the antithesis of death— 
decay. The struggle in the mental and 
moral world, as in the physical, is be- 
tween life and death. Jesus came that 
the world might have abounding life 
—life that pulses strong and that is 
victorious in every conflict. This life 
has already won great battles with 
death, as the chapter on ‘‘Reform”’ 
points out. Human torture, child 
‘fexposure,’’ the prostituted stage, 
slavery and dueling were death’s sol- 
diers—and giants they were—out on 
the field battling with the world’s 
life. These great destroying agencies 
have been vanquished—they will never 
trouble earth again. And as the world 
continues to accept the abounding life 
Jesus offers, its victories on the great 
battlefield will be multiplied. 

Jesus, the Christ, ‘‘hath brought 
life and immortality to light through 
the gospel.’’ The gospel will be vic- 
torious in every sphere of human inter- 
est and activity. ‘‘And there shall be 
no more death.’’ 

[ 204 ] 


INCIDENTS AND OBSERVA- 
TIONS 


Sone years ago, six or eight men in 

a chair-car were being entertained 
by a young man who was on his way 
home from overseas. He had a pleas- 
ing personality and was extraordinarily 
bright. His descriptions of battles, in- 
cidents and camp life and conditions 
throughout France afforded interesting 
information. Finally, he announced 
that. after the war Christianity would 
vanish. He stated, without mincing 
matters, that the Bible was all bosh, 
and that Jesus was a myth. And he 
averred, with the composed attitude of 
authority, that the war was rapidly 
opening the eyes of the keen men of the 
world to the fact that mankind had 
been deceived by the mercenary Roman 
Catholic priests and Protestant min- 
isters. 

[ 205 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


A gentleman of about fifty years— 
apparently a traveling salesman—had 
the temerity to take sharp issue with 
the wise young man, and the battle 
of words waxed hot for probably half 
an hour. 

The older man frankly acknowl- 
edged that, while not a _ professing 
Christian, he believed the Bible and 
that he regarded Jesus Christ as the 
hope of the world. 

The younger man replied: ‘‘My fa- 
ther swallows all that rubbish, but it 
ean’t be crammed down my throat.’’ 

At this point, one of the listeners 
asked: ‘‘Do I understand you to mean 
that your father actually believes the 
Bible ?’’ 

‘*Yes,’’ laughed the soldier, ‘‘he 
swallows it whole!’ 

‘*Your father must be an exception- 
ally ignorant man,’’ the other re- 
marked, with apparent carelessness. 

There was silence for a minute or 
so, and the young man’s face flushed. 
Finally, he said: ‘‘No. My father is 

[ 206 ] 


INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 


a university-trained man, and a Meth- 
odist minister.”’ 

‘“That makes no difference. If your 
father believes the Bible, he is a very 
ignorant man—a back number,’’ the 
older man insisted. 

The men who had been listening be- 
gan laughing,-and the young man in 
uniform—his face aflame—immedi- 
ately withdrew from the group. The 
last I saw of him he was gazing through 
the window from his chair. I won- 
dered then, and sometimes still wonder, 
what was going on in his head. Per- 
haps he was counting the telegraph 
poles. 

I have referred to this incident be- 
cause it affords a sample of things 
many self-opinionated, but misguided, 
people said to their friends, and to 
whomsoever else they found during the 
war who would lsten, It likewise 
serves as a reminder of prophecies, 
made from modernistic pulpits and 
through modernistic literature, respect- 
ing the sort of preaching the public 

[ 207 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


would demand after the war. Who 
does not recall the sermons and edito- 
rials and essay articles on the text, 
‘‘The night is far spent, the day is at 
hand’’? These sermons and editorials 
and articles eloquently told us that 
after the war the public would not tol- 
erate the ‘‘old viewpoint,’’ and that a 
‘‘new gospel’’ would have to be framed 
for the ‘‘new age.’’ 

Have those prophecies come true? 
Are they being gradually fulfilled? 
These questions are answered the coun- 
try over by what we eall ‘‘religious 
conditions. ”’ 

For something like three years I 
have traveled, sometimes continuously 
through several months. And I have 
availed myself of Sunday advantages 
for religious observation. My hobby, if 
I may eall it such, has been that of hear- 
ing the preachers most outstanding in 
their cities and towns—and I listened 
to quite a number. 

I happened to make headquarters 
in a city for about three months, and 

[ 208 ] 


INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 


spent my Sundays there. The two 
leading churches, each ministered to 
by a preacher of distinction in his de- 
nomination, were special objects of my 
observation. One minister was liberal, 
the other was conservative. The liber- 
alist preached to small audiences in a 
large auditorium. The conservative 
had capacity crowds in an auditorium 
of about the same size, and frequently 
people were turned from his door. I 
may have been mistaken, but I got the 
impression that the hberalist was the 
better speaker—he always displayed 
some oratory, something I did not hear 
the other attempt. 

One Sunday evening I listened to a 
preacher nationally known as a lhber- 
alist. He delivered one of the most 
eloquent addresses I have ever heard 
—to about a hundred people. I was 
informed that his audiences were never 
large. A few weeks thereafter, on a 
Sunday evening, I heard a preacher 
nationally known for his conservatism. 
He preached on ‘‘The Death, Burial and 

[ 209 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


Resurrection of Jesus,’’ which he said 
were the three great gospel facts. The 
house was packed, and I was told that 
it was the usual crowd. I was also 
informed that his church auditorium, 
while not the most artistic, was the 
largest in the State. 

There were occasional exceptions to 
the rule. I recall a town in which 
I listened to a liberalist one Sunday 
and to a conservative the next. The 
hberalist had the large crowd and the 
conservative the ‘‘handful.’’ I think 
I figured it out correctly. The liber- 
alist was a man of striking personality, 
tremendous magnetism and eloquence 
extraordinary. His voice was clear as 
a bell and musical, and he knew how to 
use it. The conservative had no per- 
sonality, his voice was harsh and rasp- 
ing, his sermon was of the scolding 
type, and he ranted about the pulpit. 
It all got on my nerves, and I naturally 
concluded that the people remained 
away because they did not enjoy being 
tortured. 

[ 210 ] 


INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 


Usually, however, I found the New 
Theology type of preacher addressing 
small audiences and the old type of 
gospel preacher speaking to the larger 
crowds. Nor do I think the reason 
for these conditions far to seek. The 
people evidently like the old gospel, or 
they would go to hear the ‘‘new gos- 
pel.” 

When talking with New Theology 
folk or reading their periodicals, one is 
likely to get the impression that the 
New Theology is having tremendous 
sway throughout the world—and espe- 
cially in America. A minister who 
greatly admires a certain New The- 
ology journal, which is undenomina- 
tional, said to me: ‘‘All the leading 
preachers and educators and informed 
laymen in the country take it.’”?, When 
in a public library the other day, I 
consulted the newspaper directory for 
1926—just to satisfy myself about that 
paper. Its circulation is twenty thou- 
sand. Twenty thousand subscribers in 
a population of over a hundred mil- 

[ 211 ] 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


lion! And I have an idea that a large 
number of conservative preachers take 
that paper to keep themselves posted 
on New Theology doings. I have sel- 
dom been in a conservative preacher’s 
study when I did not see it on his desk. 

It is my opinion that the New The- 
ology train is not making the speed 
indicated by its whistling and roaring. 

At Binghamton, N. Y., I had a Sat- 
urday evening ‘‘to kill.’”’ A gentleman 
at the hotel suggested that I go as his 
guest to see ‘‘The Fool,’’ which a noted 
stock company was playing at the lead- 
ing theater that week. I agreed to go, 
and added: ‘‘ We will make two more.”’ 
I had never read the play, nor had 
any one described it to me. Therefore, 
I naturally expected a light entertain- 
ment—perhaps one for fools only! 

I had two surprises. First, I 
found a large auditorium filled, and 
I was told that the play had drawn 
capacity audiences during the entire 
week. Second, ‘‘The Fool’’ was any- 
thing but a frivolous performance. 

eae al 


INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 


As many of my readers doubtless 
know, the ‘‘fool’’ in the play was a 
young minister who accepted Jesus as 
the Christ and ordered his preaching 
and life accordingly. True, his fashion- 
able church got rid of him because, as 
the bishop and church officers told him, 
the people did not like his preaching. 
However, I am emphasizing the fact 
that the play, in which Jesus was the 
predominant influence, and His gospel 
the burden of speech, drew the crowds. 
I might add that when the young min- 
ister, in argument with his bishop or 
church officers, appealed to Jesus and 
quoted His sayings just as they are 
recorded in the New Testament there 
was a profound hush upon the part of 
the audience, and that handkerchiefs 
at people’s eyes were very much in 
evidence. 

Whenever the minister justified his 
preaching by quoting the words of 
Jesus, those in argument with him 
ealled him ‘‘a fool’’—even his bishop 
called him ‘‘a.fool.’? He was ‘‘a fool”’ 

[ 213 } 


THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 


because he was old-fashioned enough to 
believe in Jesus, but the playhouse au- 
dience was in sympathy with him 
throughout the performance. 

My new acquaintance—a commer- 
cial traveler—and I walked back to the 
hotel in silence. In the elevator, I 
remarked that it was a wonderful play. 
I shall never forget his response: ‘‘I 
dare say that those people got more 
gospel this evening than they have re. 
ceived at church during the past six 
months.’’ He was a stranger in that 
city, and did not know its ministry. 
Nevertheless, his observation merits 
serious thought—it indicates a prevail- 
ing impression created by the modern- 
istic type of preaching. 


[ 214 | 








reds, 
ee. 
er Sd 
Sos 
ih 
+ 
—s 
ome 
=, : 
3 . 
ste, 
, 


_— = 
+ = 
- - 

om 

7 7 
- 

” 
~~ 

by 

7 _ 
_ 
wal 
& = 
_ 

— 
7 i 

“A 
< 
- 

an 
“e ~~, 
a 

7 7 

Agi, 

= 

a 

o~ 

—OoJ 
i, 
. % 
e 

i 
» 

: - 
> v® 
at 
aig 

a” on 

ae 

= 
» 

- 

« 
wee = 
ed 

é *. 
a d. 
2 7 —_ 
= @ : 
—" 

e 

=o +s 
oe 4 = » 

= 
how 

- 
a 


ne 
£ a 4 
i? ‘Sy on J Ov rhe | 5 eS 
‘a? ‘s 4 ‘<rak ie } aoe? Dhl : 7 
4 £ ~- 1 ig . y i a ts ” - 
“I a ee | ge eat” ° p 
e. ae ; i ; () aan j 
ae) 7 , rn ‘ 
Vie ene ioe 
aN Pas b. ‘ y \ bred wie 
‘ 5 a! i} ‘es _ 5) i b 
- iy * ry , i) i} i 
rar eu e Cae 
eos Clits ne 
d x, ¢ . vy ¢ . { a 
: > » i + 
: q s bf - y a? 78 ~ 
os La ina i Lat On| 
a! 4 a ¢ , wets 
<? ' “ a Sy ier 
Ps, ; ami a uy bi ; 
V7 . en ¢ a 
’ ; » wy v 7 
E ’ Ave 
, ata a. f ; 
hy eee ? ‘ rAd an ’ 
ey ; ays iv if: * : * ( 
a Te CAT Pere ah Awl ; St 
A f hia ' OO! a 
a a, OY a ae i 
; i : Ae he » (a ; d . a sh 
, ‘> i ;* ee Sy | 
; ) j w 
TS > 's. i , j - Ral > 
“ ‘ Lae ’ i 7 
iw ; pind ¥ Bt f 
a? m2 See ¢ 
i x ak ey ¢. 4 ¥ ‘| - 
Pate trad rl ' ’ Pl 
a rat “4 ! rf 
} . ( ie : ; x p-eP “ 
' il ] ' e,% 
i>t an aT bar s, 
a) ry ‘hk ‘ iz 
’ ¢ ¥ i. 1 My, 
: t ; “Ly \ ‘ “ 
; D ce ‘ « 1) Pe >i 
- ' hd ‘ Ni : 
wh 1 >) te 
a \ s i 4, 
ha, 7 ' bs ; 7 
as [ ; A ie a 
> m ‘ T Ni 
‘poh a4 ea 
® ‘ a™ 7 
Pr Ae 7 Le "> ; me f bY de, 
wad Of 7 My ; i“ yes 
Pi) etm t Tia 5 My 
: fae a, ' ; ry 
J ‘ : 
a _ ae 9 ' a 7 a 
a i an v 
ae Oe ae ; : Pa 
ete 'Y a] a “I eae | ‘ fh ae 
Gay | P ‘ rw 
f “uP ! 7 Pat i 4 Ma : 
» Ay 7 or ‘yl aad A aa) Aes 
¥ ue ; 
- . ry > td 


tae 
-*-. 
a . 
a Py 

a 

2 

~ 

= 

4. 





. :. van At yc : 


i 


+f 
ee 

ii 
i 


. 


ae 


Halicrstig 


ai 


el : 


3 road perth 


se daar CY i 
Bb My 


ficial 


te tte 
a PvErerbaeT bs ceaeey 
ge a 


Pee Hie, 
ast sa33 


Ei 
te 


sr 
He ’ 
24, 


areca 
stati ee 


Msi ats re 
i Ai ie 


eee 
oC 


fiat 


be prsr a Hit 


nia 


peateea beret 
Gee ea 


ae ena yia cas bd 

a er 3 : a 

i a: eo ith: 
Cite MeEESRU EPS t aH 


} 
Hay 
Pet iv 


isi i 


3233 


Pr itetonr lee ricer h | 


HREREESE) tH rot 


let taial bts! 
APNE 

ti dustili 
473 sie 


THM 


Teel 
Vee aT 
CUES Pe hat pr i 
a 





